Christianity

[promethean75]

Praise be to Jesus.

[Immanuel Can]

No, because both Judaism and Christianity believe that God is not His Creation, nor is His Creation "in" Him in the Panentheistic sense.

Once again -- it will always come up -- I differ with what you propose here in a practical, real-world sense. I regard Christianity (and I will also include Judaism) not as abstract, idealistic theological creations, but as things that can only be studied in context.

That begs an important question, though.

It doesn't even ask whether or not there's anything real behind the "theological creations." It rules, automatically, that they are some kind of mere fiction, or some sort of construct that implicates things other than those things the theological statements purport to speak about, such as, perhaps, the anthropological utility for collective life of a common code (even if based on nothing).

The crucial question remains: in the theology, is there any truth? And if there is any, is it literal truth, or is it merely something that the literal level completely misunderstands, and always has misunderstood, because it's not literal at all, and that now has to be drawn out by the ingenuity of modern or postmodern analysis?

Does Christ used as a metaphor for natural human goodness mean the same thing as Christ, the Saviour of a lost World?

...that in fact Christianity of that period and time did have a panentheistic understanding of divinity's penetration of the manifest world.

All you're saying here, really, is that if we use the wrong definition of "Christian," it's quite possible to make any statement, no matter how absurd, about what "Christians" have believed.

I think it must be made clear that you are the sole person on this forum that explains and defends an extremely traditional Christianity.

I don't think you should find that surprising at all.

This is not a Christian-friendly environment. I don't mean that philosophy itself isn't -- in fact, many of the major philosophers have been Christians, and today it has been opined that philosophy departments even in secular universites are highly influenced by them -- Alvin Plantinga, Eleonore Stump, Robert and Marilyn Adams, William Alston, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Doug Geivett, and Jerry Walls...to say nothing of the many greats of the past, of course.

No, I mean this forum. If you review any of the conversations we have had, you will see an unusual amount of cynicism, rudeness, ad hominems, insults to Christian belief, and even outright blasphemies against God Himself. Of course, you will also see some very reasonable folks talking earnestly, even when they disagree with me...and some really don't disagree, or disagree very little. But speaking generally, as atmospheres where a real Christian is going to feel welcomed and loved, this forum doesn't rate. So no wonder there aren't many here.

I remember that one of the first messages I receieved when I first logged on was, something to the effect that I should watch out, that I was going to get grilled, that if I was a wimp I should back out, and so on. Quite a welcome: I have not seen the like of it for the people who arrived here since. it seems that being a Christian who believes is a cardinal sin in this set. Not unexpected, but not more approrpriate for being so predictable.

But a Christian who knows what he believes need have no fear of here. The tigers are all toothless: they roar, but they have little bite. I've been gummed more often than chomped, for sure. I actually came here looking for a challenge, and a few people, yourself included, have offered something. I could name some people whom I regard as substantial thinkers or just as nice people here. But to be honest, it seems that a good many are just interested in expelling gas and posturing as deep, without doing much actual thinking. Contributions of substance are less rare here than on other forums, but still considerably more rare than they ought to be.

Unfortunate, but true.

This idea corresponds to what you say here: "both Judaism and Christianity believe that God is not His Creation, nor is His Creation "in" Him in the Panentheistic sense". The Vaishnavas would say something similar.

Tell me about that: what do you think they would say?

There is no *energy* (ie energy or matter or anything) that does not have its origin in the Supreme Being. But there is an 'external energy' and there is an 'internal energy'. We exist according to this view in a liminal area but largely within God's external energy. It carries on according to its specific rules and regulations blindly and mechanically. This view is similar, in a way, to how our materialists and physicists see and explain reality.

"Energy" is not God. Nor is "energy" an evidence of God's involvement, since there is such a thing as human, or bad, or negative or even infernal energy. So no, that's not at all the same as Christianity...though it might bear some liminal relationship to crass Materialism, as you note.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Energy" is not God. Nor is "energy" an evidence of God's involvement, since there is such a thing as human, or bad, or negative or even infernal energy. So no, that's not at all the same as Christianity...though it might bear some liminal relationship to crass Materialism, as you note.

There is no 'energy' and literally nothing that does not originate in God -- according to necessary theological definitions. Energy is in fact 'evidence' of God, but again there is nothing that is not evidence of God. Everything occurs within a 'space' created by that Creator.

Unless you really were to make some dualistic proposition.

I think you are, perhaps, getting too hung up in a language-usage. Energy is a word, that is true, and everything that God is said to have put in motion is, at its base, energy. That is if I understand what physicists say about the composition of everything. To describe even matter as energy is not such a bad designation.

So to speak of all creation as 'energy' is not wrong. And to speak of that energy as created by God is also, according to theology (your specific theology of course) not wrong. And you are right -- at least I would agree with you -- that God is not 'energy' but something entirely else.

But it is not improper, nor is it unhelpful in my view (which allows a comparative approach between religious and metaphysical conceptions) to see the manifest world as 'God's external energy'. If God did not set it in motion -- an impossibility -- and if it does not behave energetically, then how would one define it?

But what seems problematic for you is the term 'God's internal energy'. But I do not see why.

There is no need to have a semantic reaction. You could switch that word and say 'God's internal being' 'God's internal consciousness' or even 'God's internal substance'.

You would be talking, in any case, of something undefinable, would you not?

And what sort of substance do souls have in the Heaven-world that you define not only as real but as eventual? And of what is that *world* composed? Doesn't admittance to Heaven mean that a should has entered into a God-sphere? So this idea (of Heaven) corresponds to the notion of 'God's internal energy' (or being or eternal substance).

Why such emphasis on le mot juste?

[Immanuel Can]

Unless you really were to make some dualistic proposition.

"Dualism" is one of those terms people need to define. In some forms, it's clearly not tenable. In others, it's common sense.

I think you are, perhaps, getting too hung up in a language-usage.

I remember having a discussion with one of my professors in year 1. He had hard things to say about a theorist I liked, so I said to him, "Shouldn't we give him credit for what he meant, not what he said?"

The professor very calmly responded, "How are you going to know what he meant?"

So what language people use either expresses what they think, or we do not have any clue what they think. If they have spoken poorly, they can rephrase, and use better language. But even if they choose not to, guessing is not part of the game.

But it is not improper, nor is it unhelpful in my view (which allows a comparative approach between religious and metaphysical conceptions) to see the manifest world as 'God's external energy'.

Yes, but it's wrong in my view. And it's wrong in terms of Christian theology.

Why such emphasis on le mot juste?

Because "le mot juste" is all we have. If the "mot" is "pas juste," then we have nothing to go on at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Praise be to Jesus.

You're going to say that sincerely one day. You might not want to, but you're going to.

“As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow, And every tongue will give praise to God.” (Romans 14:11)

[promethean75]

"I actually came here looking for a challenge"

I... no, I can't. I can't do it, goddamit. I'm sorry.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So what language people use either expresses what they think, or we do not have any clue what they think. If they have spoken poorly, they can rephrase, and use better language. But even if they choose not to, guessing is not part of the game.

Because "le mot juste" is all we have. If the "mot" is "pas juste," then we have nothing to go on at all.

Yes, but it's wrong in my view. And it's wrong in terms of Christian theology.

But I think this is the core issue and allow me to state it as fairly, but as accurately, as I can: You resist using any language-terms, and concepts, and metaphysical descriptions and *pictures* which are outside of the Christian system.

My own view is that when you (when one) examines what people think, and here I mean of different cultures and places and times, one discovers similar patterns or paradigms of thinking and conception. I do not exclude, say, the Vedic conceptions because they can, in my view, lend some light to the Christian concepts. They have many points where they interrelate.

Except for you they do not, they cannot, and I think they must not. It is a question of your will and decisiveness.

You objected to a certain word, and you employ that rejection to stop and to stifle the conversation that is possible on what the entire notion that was presented means. This is par for the course with you. And I say that with our rancor. It is simply one of the core things about you that I notice.

The *mot* chosen is a *mot* that functions within another metaphysical descriptive system and it is not, necessarily, a mauvais mot, but one that defines a larger notion that you do not agree with or, as I say, refuse to agree with.

But your agreement or disagreement does not exclude it from conversation. Unless you have some imperial right.

It is curious to me: in your system the individual cannot move toward God. The individual cannot make a decision as an individual to 'become godly' or to 'embody godliness'. So if I laid out a list of godly things or godly ethical choices (to use this odd phrasing) you would, and you have, rejected it all.

For you the notion of 'salvation', and Salvation, is only given under a specific condition. And what is given is 'to be freed of the consequences of sin'.

It seems to end there, at least substantially. There might be millions of saved who do nothing. Because no doing is relevant (to being freed from the consequences of sin). You may think I am mangling what you have said but I am only trying to fairly paraphrase it.

[Immanuel Can]

You resist using any language-terms, and concepts, and metaphysical descriptions and *pictures* which are outside of the Christian system.

Not at all.

I only "resist" the applying of particular "language-terms" to Christianity in ways that are not truthful. As to how people apply language to other things, I have no opinion, except that they should say what they mean, not what they do not.

I do not exclude, say, the Vedic conceptions because they can, in my view, lend some light to the Christian concepts. They have many points where they interrelate.

Well, I'm going to press you on the use of a particular word again. Almost anything can "interrelate." It can "interrelate" by way of comparison, or by way of contrast. It can "interrelate" by way of agreement, or by way of denial.

So depending on what you mean by "interrelate," I may agree or disagree that a particular element of the Vedic system is comparable or contrasting to the Christian one. And I have no hesitancy about doing so.

What puzzles me, if I may reverse the problem, is that people sometimes prefer vague language to more precise terms they could be using. When they do, I generally find it points to two things: one may be that the lack the vocabulary to say what they DO mean, and so stumble around verbally and cognitively; the second is that they fear to be understood in what they actually DO mean, so they use vague language to avoid being pinned down by the truth.

But people who love precise thought, accurate understanding and truthful claims value precise words. As I say, it's all we have, when it comes to understanding one another.

The *mot* chosen is a *mot* that functions within another metaphysical descriptive system

No, words themselves do not belong to "metaphysical descriptive systems," as if each of these "systems" gets to decide arbitrarily what the words it uses mean. If that were the case, then communication by people across systems would be impossible; nobody would know, or could know, what the other person was saying.

I understand where you get that idea: from postmodernist propaganda. But I think you should be more critical of it: it's simply not true.

Words are the common property of an entire language group, used in order to facilitate them coming to agreements, compromises or understandings. They are "publically owned," not "privately owned," in terms of their meaning. So anyone who has a sincere intention to communicate must observe the rules of common usage, or stipulate a new term only by agreement and definition.

That is why you and I are presently using a things called "The English Language" to do our business. If you stop, and resort to Mandarin, Tagalog or Urdu -- or much worse, to some form of "Jacobese," -- then communication is ended, because nobody who does not share those languages can possibly understand you at all. You have then failed to keep the bargain of sincere communication, and lapsed into babble.

That's what iam has done. He doesn't get it, for one of the reasons I suggested earlier, namely, that he's not good with language and concepts, or he is, but does not wish to be understood. But that's what he's done.

[Immanuel Can]

It is curious to me: in your system the individual cannot move toward God. The individual cannot make a decision as an individual to 'become godly' or to 'embody godliness'. So if I laid out a list of godly things or godly ethical choices (to use this odd phrasing) you would, and you have, rejected it all.

That's because salvation is "not by works," as Ephesians 2 puts it.

Got has no interest in the ethical choices of men who hate Him and have no relationship to Him. Changing the latter is primary. God has an interest in the ethical behaviour of His children, those who love Him. As for the rest, they do their good deeds for themselves, not because of the connection they enjoy to Him.

For you the notion of 'salvation', and Salvation, is only given under a specific condition. And what is given is 'to be freed of the consequences of sin'.

No, you've got a poor definition there. Salvation is a rescue from a condition of being alienated from God. The fact that one is thereafter freed from certain consequences is a bonus.

You may think I am mangling what you have said but I am only trying to fairly paraphrase it.

No, I don't think you insincere or cynical, and I don't think that paraphrasing is a bad way to arrive at a better understanding of what a person means. So by all means, go ahead and paraphrase. I appreciate the opportunity such paraphrasing affords for me to clarify anything I have worded insufficiently precisely, or that has been accidentally misunderstood in some way.

Mocking paraphrases are of no utility to anyone; they're just "reductio ad absurdum" errors. But sincere attempts to paraphrase are very helpful.

[promethean75]

Look at em. The Harris I dropped should have shut this whole thread down... and not two seconds later they're right back at it. This is truly incredible.

There's good news and bad news, tho. The good news is, forum hobby philosophers are innocuous. Their confusion extends no further than the small internet space in which they make so much noise together. The bad news is, there are people like this at the highest levels of government all over the world.

[promethean75]

"As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow, And every tongue will give praise to God"

Empty promises, because god is empty just like me

[Immanuel Can]

"As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow, And every tongue will give praise to God"
Empty promises,

You'll find out.

[Immanuel Can]

The Harris I dropped ...

Never, in the history of this forum, has there been a "contributor" with so little of weight to contribute.

So Mr. Harris does it for you, does he? Well, that's one low, low bar you've got there. I'm amused again.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow, And every tongue will give praise to God"

Empty promises, because god is empty just like me

I imagined the one pictured in the video as being you (it called to mind some scene out of Repo Man!) If so, to have the visual is oddly helpful. It helps to understand better where you are. You (literally) embody the fact that you have no faith at all of any sort. I'd guess there is nothing to have reverence for. It becomes a recital. And the recital is the affirmation. And the medium is the message.

[Nick_A]

"As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow, And every tongue will give praise to God"

Empty promises, because god is empty just like me

I imagined the one pictured in the video as being you (it called to mind some scene out of Repo Man!) If so, to have the visual is oddly helpful. It helps to understand better where you are. You (literally) embody the fact that you have no faith at all of any sort. I'd guess there is nothing to have reverence for. It becomes a recital. And the recital is the affirmation. And the medium is the message.

I remember reading once of a man who had no faith but for some reason needed a woman to have faith in him.