Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Ones penis condition ...

I find this topic exceedingly puerile, and utterly uninteresting. I will pass on it, thank you.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, guess what: I'm looking for empirical answers!!! Of which [so far] you have provided me with...none.

Not true. Check out the videos I sent you.

How about this...

You note the video where actual empirical proof of the Christian God residing in Heaven is most powerful. Something that will then entice me to view all of the other 15 videos. And trust me, if the proof is there, I'll view them.

No, thank you.

You asked for proof, I gave it to you. If you don't want to see it, you don't have to. My job is done. I can't make you accept evidence as evidence. That's up to you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Have you ever thought, IC, of reading through your posts and correcting the quotation errors?

[Alexis Jacobi]

P.S. -- Here we should pause. I offer you an option: is our discourse to go forward on the disagreeable ad hominem note of you accusing me and other Christians of always being naive, being fools, fearing freedom, being binary, being locked in amber, and so on, or is it to go forward companionably, with the goal of mutually locating some further truth? I think we could decide now, and shape our discourse accordingly. I see lots of value in the latter, but little in the former.

But I leave the choice to you.

What I recommend for you is that you keep your big-boy pants tightly buckled. Act like a man and not a wimp. You may not like the comments, observations, criticisms and all the rest that make up my posts, but cease imaging that you control how this conversation will proceed. You have latched onto the false-designation of ad hominem as a tactic of control. Doing that, you derail the forward direction.

Simply stop doing that. I make no changes and will make none to the content or style of my communication. Deal with it if you wish to. That choice is 100% yours. I have nothing to do with it.

Here, Argumentun Ad Patrinus.

[Immanuel Can]

P.S. -- Here we should pause. I offer you an option: is our discourse to go forward on the disagreeable ad hominem note of you accusing me and other Christians of always being naive, being fools, fearing freedom, being binary, being locked in amber, and so on, or is it to go forward companionably, with the goal of mutually locating some further truth? I think we could decide now, and shape our discourse accordingly. I see lots of value in the latter, but little in the former.

But I leave the choice to you.

What I recommend for you is that you keep your big-boy pants tightly buckled...

So...right back to the ad homs. Disappointing. I was thinking you would do better.

Okay. We're done, I guess. I've no further interest in that.

[promethean75]

"I find this topic exceedingly puerile, and utterly uninteresting."

I'd wager that's because you're unaware of Rodney Carrington's work.

https://youtu.be/YIqttbRlJUQ

[Immanuel Can]

"I find this topic exceedingly puerile, and utterly uninteresting."
I'd wager that's because you're unaware of Rodney Carrington's work.

No. It's the topic itself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Disappointing. I was thinking you would do better. Okay. We're done, I guess. I've no further interest in that.

You are done is the manly way to put it. I am not done. I have outlined my general purposes and have a clear outline as to how I will proceed. You’ve given me lots to work with. But in a day or two. Now on a bikepacking trip . . .

[Immanuel Can]

delete.

[Nick_A]

If a culture legalizes late term abortion for convenience up to the point of birth, is it considered a Christian culture? I would say no.

Sorry for my previous misquoting error. I have no idea how it happened.

My question was: What is the cut-off date before which (when aborting) one can do so and remain Christian? Christian philosophy and the metaphysics behind it make abortion extremely problematic morally, that much I surely understand. My irony is that though late term abortion truly horrifies, earlier abortion is more or less the same (speaking technically).

In my recent conversations with IC I am merely pointing out when certain cultural shifts took place. And why. These opened up whole new worlds of activity and fulfillment in a thousand different areas. It also led to the devolution in established ethical values. It is a complex process that cannot be looked at through black and white filters.

Christianity is a conscious process. An individual first feels the need to be Christian. If they don't feel the need, then they are not a Christian. The world cannot satisfy the needs at the center of the heart and the Christian feels this need.

They want to follow in the precepts of the Christ but cannot. Part of the conscious process is forgiveness. Striving to be Christian and falling short is part of the process. A pre-Christian is like a med student unable to meet the qualifications necessary to be a doctor. Some experience rebirth and with the help of the Spirit, can become Christians.

However, a Christian culture in modern times is impossible. First of all a culture or society is the Great Beast described by Plato. A Beast is a creature of reaction incapable of conscious action. The Beast by definition, like all other beasts limited to mechanical reaction is incapable of conscious action by definition.

To consider this idea it is necessary to consider society as a living organism which is another interesting topic. I'll quote from wiki to prove others have contemplated society as a living organism. It doesn't require consciousness but just the ability to react to natural and cosmic influences.

The model, or concept, of society-as-organism is traced by Walter M. Simon from Plato ('the organic theory of society'),[1] and by George R. MacLay from Aristotle (384–322 BCE) through 19th-century and later thinkers, including the French philosopher and founder of sociology, Auguste Comte, the English philosopher and polymath Herbert Spencer,[2] and the French sociologist Émile Durkheim.[3]

According to Durkheim, the more specialized the function of an organism or society, the greater its development, and vice versa. The three core activities of a society are culture, politics, and economics. Societal health depends on the harmonious interworking of these three activities.[3]...................

What may be called a Christian culture or a creature of reaction can easily become its opposite.

But the interesting idea for me is that Christianity is a conscious process and not subject to binary definitions of yes or no. Christianity like the universe is a triune reality built on the interaction of three forces while animal reason is based on the interaction of two forces.

What is possible for the individual or to be consciously Christian with the ability To Be, requires freedom from the blind reactions of the Beast. It requires "awakening" impossible for the Beast as a whole but what offers salvation for the individual.

[iambiguous]

Not true. Check out the videos I sent you.

How about this...

You note the video where actual empirical proof of the Christian God residing in Heaven is most powerful. Something that will then entice me to view all of the other 15 videos. And trust me, if the proof is there, I'll view them.

No, thank you.

You asked for proof, I gave it to you. If you don't want to see it, you don't have to. My job is done. I can't make you accept evidence as evidence. That's up to you.

Yet again I have reduced you down to this.

Now, over at The New ILP, I'd expect this sort of thing. The site has long since ceased to be a serious philosophy forum.

But I am truly disappointed that a forum derived from a very serious philosophical publication indeed, Philosophy Now, would produce so many minds of your ilk. I challenge you over and again with questions and with points you haven't a clue how to respond to. Well, as one would expect from those who subscribe to or read Philosophy Now.

You do subscribe to or read the magazine, don't you?

You have given me no empirical proof whatsoever that the Christian God resides in Heaven. Instead, you merely define and deduce Him into existence there "in your head". You claim it's all in the videos. But when I challenge you to note an optimal instance of this, you just "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" out of it.

I can respect those who base their religious convictions on a leap of faith to God. Faith after all implies a belief in something you know you are not able to demonstrate as in fact true. And God is one possible explanation for existence itself. But you insist that your belief is not just a leap of faith. You claim to know that the Christian God does in fact exist in Heaven. But you demonstrate it only by applying your own private and personal "standards" derived entirely from what you do believe "in your head".

If someone comes to think exactly like you do in their head then you have "proven" it.

How can you not be embarrassed by this given that the forum is derived from Philosophy Now magazine?

Or is it just the nature of the internet itself? Philosophy, alas, being no exception in our lowest common denominator "social media" world.

Perhaps you should just "foe" me. Get me out of your head altogether.

[Immanuel Can]

How about this...

You note the video where actual empirical proof of the Christian God residing in Heaven is most powerful. Something that will then entice me to view all of the other 15 videos. And trust me, if the proof is there, I'll view them.

No, thank you.

You asked for proof, I gave it to you. If you don't want to see it, you don't have to. My job is done. I can't make you accept evidence as evidence. That's up to you.

Yet again I have reduced you down to this.

Heh. Yes, you're super tough.

No, you've got your evidence. Live with it, as you may. Or without it, as you may choose. It's no longer a concern of mine, because nothing would ever be accepted by you as evidence.

I am truly disappointed

Oh, no!

You? Disappointed? What can I do to make you happy?

Thanks for the chuckle.

[iambiguous]

No, thank you.

You asked for proof, I gave it to you. If you don't want to see it, you don't have to. My job is done. I can't make you accept evidence as evidence. That's up to you.

Yet again I have reduced you down to this.

Heh. Yes, you're super tough.

No, you've got your evidence. Live with it, as you may. Or without it, as you may choose. It's no longer a concern of mine, because nothing would ever be accepted by you as evidence.

I am truly disappointed

Oh, no!

You? Disappointed? What can I do to make you happy?

Thanks for the chuckle.

Let me guess: You being clever?!

Anyway, if, down the road, you do stumble upon something that is in the general vicinity of actual empirical proof that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven, pass it along to the Pope, alleged by many to reside in the Vatican. Then, if we can find actual empirical proof that he does in fact reside there, perhaps he can pass it along to the rest of world.

Indeed, if that be the case, imagine how embarrassed I'll be then!




Note to others:

Those videos are still there: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

And while IC has declined to note the most powerful empirical proof he garnered from viewing them, by all means, note that yourself.

Look, I want to believe in the Christian God again. I want there to be an essential meaning and purpose in my life. I want to believe that immortality and salvation are the Real Deal.

And, trust me, if the evidence is there that, in turn, He is the Real Deal, watch how fast I apologize profusely to IC and praise the Lord.

[Gary Childress]

No, thank you.

You asked for proof, I gave it to you. If you don't want to see it, you don't have to. My job is done. I can't make you accept evidence as evidence. That's up to you.

Yet again I have reduced you down to this.

Heh. Yes, you're super tough.

No, you've got your evidence. Live with it, as you may. Or without it, as you may choose. It's no longer a concern of mine, because nothing would ever be accepted by you as evidence.

I am truly disappointed

Oh, no!

You? Disappointed? What can I do to make you happy?

Thanks for the chuckle.

IC, you're little more than a satan worshiper in my book. God is a farce. If he exists, and the Bible is true, then he's utterly barbaric. You'd be much better off believing in nothingness. At least nothingness doesn't condemn people to hell and break people down in order to make them worship him. I have no idea what Chrstians see in God but it's pretty demented.

[Immanuel Can]

Let me guess: You being clever?!

Good guess!

Anyway, if, down the road, you do stumble upon something that is in the general vicinity of actual empirical proof that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven, pass it along to the Pope, alleged by many to reside in the Vatican.

Already done, and you ignored it. I did it two messages ago, as I recall. But I'll summarize here.

You say you've never been to the Vatican. You say you know about the Pope from suppostion and by the word of others. That's what you've got. And if you think that's a tough epistemic to attain, you're kidding yourself.

Just about anything meets that low a bar. It's hard, indeed NOT to meet it.

Indeed, if that be the case, imagine how embarrassed I'll be then!

I don't expect so. I think you'll just claim that the epistemic standard you yourself gave is no longer good enough, and demand something more.

I wouldn't blame you...it was a lame standard. But having hinged all your skepticism on such a low epistemic "bar," you can hardly backtrack without obvious self-contradiction...so now it will be interesting to see what verbal gymnastics and mental contortions you put yourself through in order to say, "When I said the Pope in the Vatican, I didn't mean the same epistemic test."

Oh, and PS -- Even Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A Going to watch that one?