The Philosophy Discussion Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:02 am Hell_o IC

What denomination of Christian church are you part of?

There is actually only one Christian church, composed of all those who belong to Christ. Denominational labels are irrelevant, since there are none in Scripture, ever.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:53 am Which alleged "ethical and moral admonitions" do you think Romans has in common with the Gita?

Write out the ones that you feel are different? In another post on this topic, when I enumerated ethics admonitions in the Gita, you said "Everyone and anyone can do that" (or something to that effect). Do more of your own work here IC. The resist carrying the whole burden.

No, the burden of proof's on you. On the face, they are two different documents, written by vastly different peoples at vastly different times. It's on you to show there's a commonality, not on me.

There are commonalities between ethical and moral systems and certainly between the Vedic-Hindu and the Christian. If you disagree explain why.

Three words you use differently from the way I ever use them are "God," "Christian" and "church." But there are others, too. We've done a lot of talking about how you see these words very differently. So you shouldn't really even need to ask.

Well, I am right now involved in a study -- lots of reading, numerous books ordered, and quite a bit of efforts lying in front of me -- as I begin to examine the movements (generally fin-de-siècle) which re-visioned spirituality and religion. The more that I study this time-frame (it centered in the wider Germanic world but Germany itself had a great deal to do with it, thus the easy references are Nietzsche, Freud, Adler and Jung ad a dozen others) the more that I see how widespread it has all become.

Now, I have to determine 'the reasons' for this, and the reasons are (as I say) because the Christian model of God -- even your model of an absolutely pure God, absolutely removed from this world, with not even one likeness of such a God in this world, and indeed nowhere in any world, nor in the Universe (the Christian God is utterly removed from life and, as such, is actually in my view a total abstraction)(But I have already said this) -- the reasons must be seen, examined and put out on the table for examination.

If I had 'an apologetics project' (and mine is that we should not merely dismiss Christianity and on the other should have for it an immense respect -- and this is what I have said all bloody along!) I would go about the process of closer examination more thoroughly. My assumption is that most people do not understand well enough why Christianity, as such, came to be seen as insufficient (as well as also *untrue* in some aspects).

So yes! You have got that right! I will use 'God' in very different ways than you, a strict fanatical believer (who cannot, therefore, do any examination at all of your own 'structure' and who sums up every argument brought against him with "OK buddy, but you'll soon be in Hell and then how are you gonna feel, eh?!"

Because you clearly didn't understand i ... me wrong.
I generally gloss over these sorts of statements. You are in no position to make admonitions and recommendations to me as to what I should and shouldn't do. The position you take is arrogant from where I sit. These comments arouse contempt. Unless I am very wrong there is no notion or concept that you have presented that I have not understood.

You can be certain that what the Bible says about Him, and about you, will be the case. You can even leave me totally out of the equation, and that will still be true.

I know that many different things are written in the NT generally. My position is that they are *assertions* and these assertions form part of a religious-social system. Many things I take to heart but I would do this even if I had not read them in scripture. Others I see as 'referencing truths' but that, in fact (in my view) the truths operate somewhat differently than what is patterned in scripture.

Thus it takes an interpretive mind to examine all of these things. The Bible (Jewish and Christian scripture) is bound up in a) open and obvious false-stories (mythologies) as well as with (I think) very b) profound and poignant truths). I would definitely advise people to read and consider all Paul's writing for example (and those part 3 first chapters of Romans are worthwhile, I read them yesterday afternoon just to be reminded and to have them fresh).

In any case I hope to be able to examine more, and wrote about, my impressions as to why a strict Christian ethics, and life lived strictly within traditional religious community and its constraints, became untenable. And what people then chose to do. Note: A great deal of this had to do with a conscious rediscovery of Pagan modes of being. So when the imposed layer of Christianity (understood as a historical imposition) was removed it freed up a great deal of energy, and this energy was put to use. Some of this was 'good' and, as with all things in life, some 'bad'. But it certainly happened. And I am interested in exploring it through.

So I don't ask you to believe me; but do you believe the Word of God? And the answer is between you and Him. Again, you don't even need me in the equation.

If you present me with 'the word of God' you will have to present me with God Himself. Were God to appear and speak, yes, I assure you, I would concede all those points I am reluctant to. But what would this *real God* say? What if it turned out that this Real God actually said different things from what you say? What if, hypothetically, He were to look at my life-lived and say "Overall not so bad. But you know you've got a tremendous amount more of work to do, right?"

You have this demeaning idea that no one bust YOU (Christians of your sort) can even communicate with divinity. You negate the possibility! So as I say this terrifying arrogance needs, in my view, to be punctured.

Don't worry though, all of this can be explored.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:02 am Hell_o IC

What denomination of Christian church are you part of?

There is actually only one Christian church, composed of all those who belong to Christ. Denominational labels are irrelevant, since there are none in Scripture, ever.

IC is a Non-denominational Christian. It is important to understand some of the background to Nondenominational belief in order to understand IC here in this conversation.

Here is a list of Pentecostal and Non-Denominational Evangelicals. Some of these figures IC will surely be familiar with. There are links between Pentecostalism (a religion that is spreading all over the second and third world today with astounding growth) and Non-denominationalism.

Essentially, these are American interpretations of Christianity and they do involve going back to scripture itself while negating all forms of Christianity established in early times (which they see as deviant and mistaken and thus condemn them). They see themselves, as IC sees himself, as the 'true Christians' in a sea of false Christians.

IC could you write a few in-depths post where you describe what your missionary work is and where? A link to the present church you are associated with would be helpful.

Here is an old video of a healing performance by AA Allen.

Here is one of the Hex Humbard World Ministry.

This is a movement quintessentially dominated by an American (or americanized) branch of enthusiastic religion.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:27 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:53 am Which alleged "ethical and moral admonitions" do you think Romans has in common with the Gita?

Write out the ones that you feel are different?

That's all of them. That's my claim.

Your turn. Give me just one.

Three words you use differently from the way I ever use them are "God," "Christian" and "church." But there are others, too. We've done a lot of talking about how you see these words very differently. So you shouldn't really even need to ask.

...the Christian model of God...is actually in my view a total abstraction.

That's a long sentence, with multiple subordinate clauses, to get across this very simple and totally arbitrary prouncement. I've shortened it for clarity.

If I had 'an apologetics project' ... I would go about the process of closer examination more thoroughly.

Same problem: many words, awkward subordinations, little content.

So yes! You have got that right! I will use 'God' in very different ways than you

Wow. It took you a long while to say "Yes."

I did it in three letters.

You can be certain that what the Bible says about Him, and about you, will be the case. You can even leave me totally out of the equation, and that will still be true.

The Bible (has) ...obvious false-stories [and] very profound and poignant truths.[/quote]
Again, I've shortened your sentence to its straisghtfoward subject and predication. Minus the word-salad, this is all it says.

Again, this is just a gratuitious claim on your part.

So I don't ask you to believe me; but do you believe the Word of God? And the answer is between you and Him. Again, you don't even need me in the equation.

If you present me with 'the word of God' you will have to present me with God Himself.[/quote]
He has already done that. You refused to believe Him.

What if, hypothetically, He were to look at my life-lived and say "Overall not so bad. But you know you've got a tremendous amount more of work to do, right?"

You make God sound like a high school English teacher.

If God were to say any such thing, then he would be making void His own word. For He has already told us what He will say, and on what basis He will say it. It will be either, "Well done, good and faithful servant," or "Depart from me, you worker of iniquity." (See Matthew 25) Those are the choices.

My encouragement would be that you make the right one.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:35 pm IC could you write a few in-depths post where you describe what your missionary work is and where?

You've got it wrong. I'm not a "missionary," and not a "Pentecostal" either.

But it's all ad hominem. It doesn't matter what I am, what I do, where I go, what I call myself, what my hat size is...all of that. What matters is the truth or falsehood of any particular proposition a person offers here.

This is a philosophy site. It's the ideas that are up for debate. I deliberately keep my personal details out of the picture, because simple-minded folks find them distracting.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:53 pm You've got it wrong. I'm not a "missionary," and not a "Pentecostal" either.

Talk more about your specific church-related activities. Talk more about your church. Link if you can to similar churches if you don't want to include your own. If you are not involved in missionary work, what brought you to Africa, to Central America and to South America?

Pentecostalism and Nondenominationalism are loosely bunched together because they are uniquely 'rootless' in an historical sense and they are extremely American. The purpose is to locate this brand of Christianity in the present, to grasp its power and influence.

Here, I even have a soundtrack!

But it's all ad hominem. It doesn't matter what I am, what I do, where I go, what I call myself, what my hat size is...all of that. What matters is the truth or falsehood of any particular proposition a person offers here.

This is a philosophy site. It's the ideas that are up for debate. I deliberately keep my personal details out of the picture, because simple-minded folks find them distracting.

Sorry, but that method does not work. You-singular and you-plural have to be seen in your context. And actually we all need to be seen and to reveal ourselves in our context. Everything that we are discussing is contextual.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:53 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:35 pm IC could you write a few in-depths post where you describe what your missionary work is and where?

You've got it wrong. I'm not a "missionary," and not a "Pentecostal" either.

But it's all ad hominem. It doesn't matter what I am, what I do, where I go, what I call myself, what my hat size is...all of that. What matters is the truth or falsehood of any particular proposition a person offers here.

This is a philosophy site. It's the ideas that are up for debate. I deliberately keep my personal details out of the picture, because simple-minded folks find them distracting.

Certain ideas cannot be debated in philosophy forums. Doing so will have you banned for disturbing the peace as I know by experience. But it is a lot better than being killed as what happened to Socrates and Jesus. You have a ways to go before warranting being banned. You are still too acceptable to the secular world.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:53 pm This is a philosophy site. It's the ideas that are up for debate. I deliberately keep my personal details out of the picture, because simple-minded folks find them distracting.

Simple of mind is someone that actually believes the universe was spoken into existence.

Indeed, is this your idea of a Christian 'church':- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTfKpAWkgJY&t=461s

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:03 pmTalk more about your specific church-related activities.

Exactly what relevance will that have to anything I say?

Convenient pidgeon-holing? Disregarding substantive claims? Party spirit?

No, thank you.

There's a reason I leave my profile blank: it's so that naive people don't get distracted by the ad hominem.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:13 pm You are still too acceptable to the secular world.

Maybe we all are, Nick: but that's regrettable, if it's sometimes true.

We should make it our effort not to be.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:31 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:03 pmTalk more about your specific church-related activities.

Exactly what relevance will that have to anything I say?

Convenient pidgeon-holing? Disregarding substantive claims? Party spirit?

No, thank you.

There's a reason I leave my profile blank: it's so that naive people don't get distracted by the ad hominem.

Well let me clarify, again. I am making the effort to 'contextualize' you. But I did not (and don't) expect you to post your home church! I suggested one that is like your church. It is absolutely not 'ad hominem' to research a man's context. You establish that it is because you wish to avoid being fully seen.

But my view is that we all have a context, and to be really honest with those around us (in conversations like this) we have to be willing, within acceptable reason, to share the context of our views.

Now, what I most notice is that not one person in this thread agrees with any other person! There are, therefore, a number of atomized individuals with very different orientations, and even those who should share some agreements (and could 'work together') can't! I find this fascinating and amazing.

There are reasons for this condition! It has to do with the breakdowns in agreements and, additionally, it can be tied back to the pre- and post-fin-de-siècle era. We literally look out from our eyes and do not see the same world.

Exactly what relevance will that have to anything I say?

You exist and live in and though a monumental phantasy. It is the entire structure and edifice of your belief that, for you, is not believe but REALITY. It is the most real real. But it is your nourished phantasy. Meaning fantastic stories, enclosing all sorts of truths (some of them relevant and important), that determine all that you *believe*.

Now, you take my statement to mean that *I do not believe any of it* and so you must shove me over to the camp of the real atheistis you battle here. But my 'belief' functions very differently from yours. This is at the least an interesting posture to have.

Your 'context' is a social-religiousness. This means there are tens of thousands -- millions and millions -- who *think like you do*. That is not an irrelevant issue! You wish to pretend that, no, we should just examine the facts (presented in philsoophical terms) but no, that isn't enough.

These are enormous, shared, belief-phantasies that are shared in Mega Churches by those of your persuasion (Nondenominationals). Why cannot this be talked about?

There's a reason I leave my profile blank: it's so that naive people don't get distracted by the ad hominem.

No you tricky devil! The reason you do not reveal your context is because you actually believe the structure of your belief system *should be* debated without any context! It is the way you shield yourself from a better view, a necessary view about what you-plural are really doing.

And the other context that interests me is, of course, the fin-de-siècle era and trust me we cannot understand that, and those people, without examining the cultural and social contexts in real depth.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 5:40 pm It is absolutely not 'ad hominem' to research a man's context.

Yeah, it is.

"Research a man's context" is weasel-wording for "accept or reject his claims on the basis of something personal," or "ad hominem."

Exactly what relevance will that have to anything I say?

You exist and live in and though a monumental phantasy.

There you go! QED.

You are trying to dismiss a logical claim on the basis of your imagined profile of the speaker. You're ad hominem.

No, ain't gonna play Sun City.

There's a reason I leave my profile blank: it's so that naive people don't get distracted by the ad hominem.

No you tricky devil!

Ad hominem. And false. And missing a comma.

But I see you're getting used to being wrong, so maybe that no longer troubles you...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 7:58 pm "Research a man's context" is weasel-wording for "accept or reject his claims on the basis of something personal," or "ad hominem."

No, you are really wrong. Our context is far more than merely personal. And in this vein the context changed, in so many ways, in respect to classical Christian belief, that entire other avenues opened up. To see and understand that context helps one to better understand -- perhaps to see from a bird's eye view -- what happened, and why it happened. No ultimate decisions have been made in regard to metaphysical assertions though. And in this sense the metaphysical claims are left undecided.

I know that you simply cannot grasp what is going on here. But perhaps farther down the line you will.

You are trying to dismiss a logical claim on the basis of your imagined profile of the speaker. You're ad hominem. No, ain't gonna play Sun City.

This is a false assertion and again. Did you say 'logical claim'? Are you for real? Your recent assertion, which you present as an absolute, unquestionable fact, is that I will soon be in a position (and you and all of us I suppose will be in a position) where we will *talk to God* (or God will talk to us).

What I wish to say to you, to suggest if you prefer, is that this is evidence of an elaborate phantasy, independently of the possibility that it may turn out that way. When I use the term 'phantasy' I do not mean it quite in the way you take it. Similarly perhaps, but with a nuanced difference.

All men live through their *phantasy* or *imagined world* (or metaphysical dream). What is happening, now, in this thread is that yours is being examined. And your belief-system is also being examined in the context of huge cultural shifts of consequence. What has occurred over about 150 years. What has resulted, and what the consequences have been.

IC: There's a reason I leave my profile blank: it's so that naive people don't get distracted by the ad hominem.

AJ: No you tricky devil!

I am not at all troubled by anything I have said or write nor the general tack I am taking. On the contrary!

But to label those who participate here naive, though I do not mind at all that you use that term, and I doubt anyone else does, is according to your own definition ad hominem, is it not?

But none of this matters one iota. Personally, and I have stated my view up-front, I think you are dishonest about why you conceal what you are actually involved in. You prefer to 'argue' (such as it is) on an abstract plane as if any particular metaphysical claim of the Bible and Christianity must be taken as true at face value. Your error is there. There is no reason why these claims must be taken as true! And many of your recent opponents tells you exactly why this is so! Yet you literally refuse to hear them. I am not here to accept or to deny those claims. I am rather trying to see how they operate within a context.

But I see you're getting used to being wrong, so maybe that no longer troubles you...

Please be so kind as to write out in depth what exactly I get wrong. If you are going to make that claim you will have to back it up. If you cannot, then the claim is automatically retracted. It does not stand.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 10:32 pm I know that you simply cannot grasp what is going on here.

No, believe me: I've got it.

Your recent assertion, which you present as an absolute, unquestionable fact, is that I will soon be in a position (and you and all of us I suppose will be in a position) where we will *talk to God*

If I say it, it means nothing.

If He says it, prepare your answer.

I think you are dishonest

Aaaaaad hominem.

But I see you're getting used to being wrong, so maybe that no longer troubles you...

Please be so kind as to write out in depth what exactly I get wrong.

Already done. Go back and read the thread, if you've forgotten.