Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

"God is dead" -- Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" -- God.

Anticipating Age:

Man LOL
God LOLL

[henry quirk]

But God and the concept of God are the same.

Nope. Man holds an image in his head, one not entirely accurate, of an independently existing being, the first being, the being who undergirds being.


Before there were men there was no God, only nature.

Nope. Before man, before nature, before reality: there was the Creator.

*Nature is an independently existing being. Nature needs no cause ; nature is cause of itself. God is the same as nature plus the sort of intelligent intentions that human beings have.

*That's pantheism, yeah? I'm a deist: nature/Reality exists, it has beings (persons like you and me) within it. And a being (person) created it. But nature is not a being.

[henry quirk]

That's wrong.

To know ''there was the Creator'' is to make the Creator a noun.

Nouns are not Creators, they are the Created.

God existed before man. We name Him God or Creator or Maker, we apply the placeholder, we don't manufacture the being we apply the placeholder to.

*A placeholder implies a place to take hold of...that requires two things, a holder and the thing it's holding.

While Superman is flying through the air assuring the falling girl, that he is now holding her, and that he's got her, to which the girl replies, you've got me, but who's got you. . see the problem?

Truth is, **we just CANNOT know the Creator, without making it a created thing. For there is no one to cross the horizon to get a peek up the creator's shirt. No such horizon ever existed.

*No. In context, the placeholder God is the symbol or name of the being (person) who created the universe.

**Sure we can. And not as a created thing but as an existing person. We know He creates. We know reason, conscience and free will are important to Him. We know he trusts us. Seems like a damn good start to me.

[Sculptor]

But God and the concept of God are the same.

Nope. Man holds an image in his head, one not entirely accurate, of an independently existing being, the first being, the being who undergirds being.


Before there were men there was no God, only nature.

Nope. Before man, before nature, before reality: there was the Creator.

*Nature is an independently existing being. Nature needs no cause ; nature is cause of itself. God is the same as nature plus the sort of intelligent intentions that human beings have.

*That's pantheism, yeah? I'm a deist: nature/Reality exists, it has beings (persons) within it. And a being (person) created it. But nature is not a being.

Explain what you think you mean by "I'm a Deist", please.

[henry quirk]

*Nature is an independently existing being. Nature needs no cause ; nature is cause of itself. God is the same as nature plus the sort of intelligent intentions that human beings have.

*That's pantheism, yeah? I'm a deist: nature/Reality exists, it has beings (persons like you and me) within it. And a being (person) created it. But nature is not a being.

Explain what you think you mean by "I'm a Deist", please.

God exists. He created the universe. He created man. Man is gifted by God with reason, conscience, and free will (in other words, everything we need to make a go of it). God is not personally involved in how Reality unfolds. Revelation isn't necessary to suss out God.

[RCSaunders]

*That's pantheism, yeah? I'm a deist: nature/Reality exists, it has beings (persons like you and me) within it. And a being (person) created it. But nature is not a being.

Explain what you think you mean by "I'm a Deist", please.

God exists. He created the universe. He created man. Man is gifted by God with reason, conscience, and free will (in other words, everything we need to make a go of it). God is not personally involved in how Reality unfolds. Revelation isn't necessary to suss out God.

By what process or means did you arrive at that conclusion based on what evidence, if you care to explain. I'm just curious why anyone believes there must be anything more than the actual world we directly perceive and live in?

[Age]

When Nietzsche wrote God is dead he meant that God as authority is dead and now we should begin to take responsibility for ourselves instead of shrugging it on to God.

No, actually. He didn't mean that. He meant that the concept "God" is "dead" in a metaphorical sense. Nietzsche never believed that God ever existed; for Nietzsche, the whole word "God" was just a placeholder, a concept that people used in order to orient their morals, structure their social interactions and direct their goals. Now, he thought, that concept no longer has a necessary function -- though his madman arrived "too soon," as Nietzsche put it: the news that this "God concept" was "dead" had not yet reached most people. So secular people were still trying to live AS IF God existed, but Nietzsche thought this combo was bound to be inauthentic and not durable.

A more reasonable myth may develop from men's own creating imaginations. Let us hope so anyway!

The myths that man invents when he refuses to believe in God have never been good ones. Humanism was a very flimsy, thin one that you don't hear much about anymore. Secular liberalism never made any sense, even on its own terms, so it has been rejected in favour of much more radical alternatives. Materialism denies all reality to things like self, soul, volition, purpose and hope, and people find it simply to deadening to live with. Nazism and Communism are two of the most famous ideologies developed from denial of God; and if they were the only ones, that would be more than enough to warrant us being very, very concerned about the consequences of actual disbelief.

But God and the concept of God are the same. Before there were men there was no God, only nature.

Will you please explain how there was, supposedly, no God, only nature, before human beings came into existence?

And, will you please explain what is the actual difference between God and nature?

Christianity holds that the concept of God was made flesh in Jesus Christ. Nietzsche's dead God means useless concept of God. The Superman is a man who can carry his own and others' burdens and not expect an Almighty Providence to take charge.

Nazism and Stalinism and their modern descendants warn us that dispensing with God is dangerous. Idolatry too warns us. Humanism does lack the fire and blood that a substantial myth imparts to a religion.

When you say"materialism" I understand you to refer to the popular, not the ontological, meaning of the word. Better call it consumerism then we don;t go down that rabbit hole.

Secular liberalism which some refer to as "welfare socialism" is basically Christian or post-Christian in intent and ethic.

The spirit of truth and goodness demands we don't ascribe Godhood to any less than our best ideas.

[Sculptor]

*That's pantheism, yeah? I'm a deist: nature/Reality exists, it has beings (persons like you and me) within it. And a being (person) created it. But nature is not a being.

Explain what you think you mean by "I'm a Deist", please.

God exists. He created the universe. He created man. Man is gifted by God with reason, conscience, and free will (in other words, everything we need to make a go of it). God is not personally involved in how Reality unfolds. Revelation isn't necessary to suss out God.

If man is gifted by god, I think that makes you a theist.
What makes you think this idea makes sense?

[henry quirk]

Explain what you think you mean by "I'm a Deist", please.

God exists. He created the universe. He created man. Man is gifted by God with reason, conscience, and free will (in other words, everything we need to make a go of it). God is not personally involved in how Reality unfolds. Revelation isn't necessary to suss out God.

By what process or means did you arrive at that conclusion based on what evidence, if you care to explain. I'm just curious why anyone believes there must be anything more than the actual world we directly perceive and live in?

RC, I'd be happy to tell you how I arrived at deism, right after you clear this...

RC,

After a mornin' of tradin' on the black & gray markets you come home to find your wife dead. Her throat is slashed open as is her belly. Your house is ransacked. It's obvious this ain't suicide.

What do you?

...up for me.

(the little ↑ will take you to the conversation we almost had, if you need to refresh your memory)

[Age]

Age,

LOOK, I also do NOT have to go looking for YOUR WORDS and CITE them.

Then allow me to assist you: in context, this is my position, my words...

A man belongs to himself.

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

...you so badly misinterpret for your own purpose.

What are you ASSUMING is "my own purpose" in this discussion here with you?

Once you have made this CLEAR, then this will help in REVEALING WHY you are being so defensive of your OWN VIEW here.

By the way, you can keep re-repeating the above as many times as you like, but this does NOT DETRACT from what those words ACTUAL MEAN to you when someone touches your stuff or enters your home and what you BELIEVE you have a right to do and/or would do.

From WITHIN your OWN continually written words above, or in other words from between those lines above, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is YOUR INTENTION behind them.

Explain, if you can, how you derive this...

in "henry quirk's" world, if someone touches "henry's stuff", even if it is a toothpick, or they are standing in a building, which you claims "is yours", you BELIEVE you have the 'right' to forfeit that one's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole.

...from my words.

I derived that from other things you have SAID, in which you made it VERY CLEAR that this is EXACTLY what you BELIEVE you have a right to do. (BUT, because I am NOT going to go looking for those words of yours, we can DISREGARD this CLAIM if you like. It does NOT worry me at all).

I, ALSO, derived that from YOUR OWN CHOSEN WORDS above, in which it ALSO can be CLEARLY SEEN that, to you, a 'man's' (which ACTUALLY MEANS a human's) life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when that human being knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another human being, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

Which OBVIOUSLY MEANS that if a human being enters your house or touches your stuff, and you have not permitted them to, then they are knowingly, willingly and/or without just cause depriving you, in part or whole, of your liberty or property.

Can you REALLY STILL NOT SEE what you "yourself" are saying and MEANING above here "henry quirk"?

Previously I was thinking that you were just 'trying to' DEFLECT, but now I am starting to wonder if you REALLY can NOT YET SEE your OWN CONTRADICTIONS, self-giving EXCUSES and "self-justifications" for your OWN FANTASY of being "allowed" to shoot DEAD "other" human beings, whenever you WANT TO and feel you have a 'right' to.

Look, it is this SIMPLE, under your own made up rules that you wrote above, if someone deprives you of your "own property", knowingly, no matter what it is, then you BELIEVE you have a 'right' to forfeit them of their life, liberty, or property. Which means that if ANY one, knowingly, "touches your toothpick" for example, no matter if it is a man, woman, or child, then under those rules of YOURS you can forfeit them of life, or just plain old SHOOT them DEAD. And, all you would have to do is say, "they had no just cause to touch my stuff". Because, to you, (like a very spoilt child), you have the attitude that, "this is MINE", and, "NO one can touch MY stuff without MY permission".

Now, if ANY of this is Wrong or Incorrect, then, ONCE AGAIN, just feel FREE to Correct it and make it Right. It does NOT get anymore simpler AND easier.

This is because what I wrote is what you BELIEVE is true anyway.

No, it's not, and -- across multiple threads -- you've failed to prove it.

But I do NOT have to prove it because you are PROVING it "yourself" EVERY time you write the words:

A man belongs to himself.

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

Now, either you BELIEVE in this OR you do NOT, or something else. So which one is it?

If what I wrote is NOT what you BELIEVE, then what EXACTLY is what you BELIEVE?

Also, and furthermore, besides your OWN BELIEFS being in the your OWN WORDS above, the FLAWS, FAILINGS, CONTRADICTIONS, and SELF-"JUSTIFICATION" for depriving "others" of their own lives, liberties, and/or properties are in YOUR OWN WORDS above, AS WELL.

[Age]

Age,

Are you YET AWARE that 'self-awareness' is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing than what you were 'trying to' POINT OUT here?

Seems you're havin' the same problem with self-awareness as you do with forfeit.

LOL

Now it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that you are NOT YET AWARE what 'self-awareness' refers to, EXACTLY.

Also, I use the word 'forfeit' in the EXACT SAME way that you are MEANING that word.

And, it is the ACTUAL FAILINGS in your OWN MADE UP rules that you are NOT YET AWARE of

[henry quirk]

Explain what you think you mean by "I'm a Deist", please.

God exists. He created the universe. He created man. Man is gifted by God with reason, conscience, and free will (in other words, everything we need to make a go of it). God is not personally involved in how Reality unfolds. Revelation isn't necessary to suss out God.

If man is gifted by god, I think that makes you a theist.
What makes you think this idea makes sense?

If a deist's God creates man with reason, conscience, and free will, how is this not a gift?

It makes sense to me. I'm willin' to discuss it, but -- as I have no holy book to advise me, no holy men to direct me, no coffers to fill, and no compulsion to convert anyone -- I couldn't give two drizzly shits if my deism makes sense to you or anyone.

Oh, Henry, that's so intemperate, and hostile!

Yep. I know who I'm contendin' with: sculptor is no buddy of mine and his interest in my deism is motivated by distaste, not curiosity. That doesn't mean I won't talk with him; it does mean I ain't gonna pretend the conversation is anything but a hostile one.

[henry quirk]

What are you ASSUMING is "my own purpose" in this discussion here with you?

I have no clue what your purpose is: I only know you have one.


By the way, you can keep re-repeating the above as many times as you like but this does NOT DETRACT from what those words ACTUAL MEAN to you when someone touches your stuff or enters your home and what you BELIEVE you have a right to do and/or would do.

What you claim...

in "henry quirk's" world, if someone touches "henry's stuff", even if it is a toothpick, or they are standing in a building, which you claims "is yours", you BELIEVE you have the 'right' to forfeit that one's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole.

...is not connected to this...

A man belongs to himself.

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.


I derived that from other things you have SAID, in which you made it VERY CLEAR that this is EXACTLY what you BELIEVE you have a right to do. (BUT, because I am NOT going to go looking for those words of yours, we can DISREGARD this CLAIM if you like. It does NOT worry me at all).

No, I ain't lettin' you off the hook. What other things have I said wherein it was very clear that this...

in "henry quirk's" world, if someone touches "henry's stuff", even if it is a toothpick, or they are standing in a building, which you claims "is yours", you BELIEVE you have the 'right' to forfeit that one's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole.

...is exactly what I believe I have a right to do?


And, all you would have to do is say, "they had no just cause to touch my stuff". Because, to you, (like a very spoilt child), you have the attitude that, "this is MINE", and, "NO one can touch MY stuff without MY permission".

Nope. All that nonsense doesn't follow from my position.

Wrap your head around this, if you can: if I take a life, I have to justify it, to God, the community, and myself. If you touched my prized toothpick there's no just cause in takin' your life. It's a toothpick, age, you can have it (mind you, I already picked my teeth with it, so -- mebbe -- you don't wanna put it in your mouth). Your problem, I think, is you think so literally there's no room for nuance or common sense.

You think like a machine (rationally), not like a man (reasonably).

Try this: which of the followin'...

a toothpick, my coffee mug, my car, my kid, my self

...do you believe I value most? Which do you believe I value least?

If reasonable like a man, the most and least valued are obvious to you; if only rational like a machine, you'll flub it up.

[henry quirk]

Now it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that you are NOT YET AWARE what 'self-awareness' refers to, EXACTLY.

It means you lack self-awareness (you have no awareness of self, of the inconsistency of your actions). You aren't aware of the incongruity between claiming I believe sumthin' and then never backin' that claim, and askin' DAM why she attributed sumthin' to you that wasn't yours (you're incapable of seein' the contradiction between the two).


Also, I use the word 'forfeit' in the EXACT SAME way that you are MEANING that word.

No, you don't (I'm still curious which dictionary you used to look forfeit up).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

God exists. He created the universe. He created man. Man is gifted by God with reason, conscience, and free will (in other words, everything we need to make a go of it). God is not personally involved in how Reality unfolds. Revelation isn't necessary to suss out God.

If man is gifted by god, I think that makes you a theist.
What makes you think this idea makes sense?

If a deist's God creates man with reason, conscience, and free will, how is this not a gift?

It makes sense to me. I'm willin' to discuss it, but -- as I have no holy book to advise me, no holy men to direct me, no coffers to fill, and no compulsion to convert anyone -- I couldn't give two drizzly shits if my deism makes sense to you or anyone.

Oh, Henry, that's so intemperate, and hostile!

Yep. I know who I'm contendin' with: sculptor is no buddy of mine and his interest in my deism is motivated by distaste, not curiosity. That doesn't mean I won't talk with him; it does mean I ain't gonna pretend the conversation is anything but a hostile one.

Deity just means god. You're deluding yourself if you think you are any different from any other bog-standard religious nut.