Christianity

[iambiguous]

But, okay, let's agree that I said it wrong the first time.

You could just have said that.

But I did make my point more specific:

Come on, IC, all entertainment aside, you know damn well that the point here revolves not around whether Jesus existed as a historical figure but around Him, a Jew, being the Christian God. Around how each of us here connect the dots between the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave and Judgment Day. Around you demonstrating to us that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven as others can demonstrate that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

Let's not lose sight of the whole point of religion, okay?

Again, however, my point is that, given what is at stake for all of us on this side of the grave [moral Commandments], and on the other side of it [immortality and salvation] why one Earth did the Christian God do such a piss poor job with a Scripture that does not make it unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, clear that His is the One True Path?

As insulting as your wording is, I answered this. If you don't like my answer, that's one thing; if you didn't read it, it's another.

Okay, instead of piss poor, let's say that the Christian God did an inadequate job of "conveying unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that His is the One True Path."

And your answer is "read the Bible". Sincerely, however, as you do.

Also, it's not about liking your answer, it's about you going beyond those videos in demonstrating that the Christian Bible is the one true answer because it says so in the Christian Bible.

Again: do you understand the part here about going around and around in circles tautologically?

What, we should just read the Book of John and take His account of it?

Please show me where I said "we should just read the Book of John?"

And if I never said it, why did you?

Note to others:

What, in all sincerity, can explain this other than a "condition"? Over and again he "demonstrates" the existence of the Christian God by going to the Christian Bible. The Book of John. The Book of Romans.

Unless, perhaps, in an exercise in irony, he is just playing this character he calls Immanuel Can. He posts what he does here only in order to draw our attention to just how ridiculous some can be in defending Christianity.

I think anybody who reads it sincerely will come to the right conclusion.

Ah, of course: back to going around and around in circles.

If you read the Bible sincerely you will know that it is true. But if you read it and don't believe it is true you didn't read it sincerely.

Then incredibly enough you just repeat yourself...

I don't need to argue it with you. Read Romans 1. It says you should know, and you do know. You just don't want to know.

So, sure, I will too...

Same thing of course. Romans 1 will answer your question if you want it to. If it doesn't answer your question it's because you didn't want it to sincerely.

Sigh...

And there they are. All the other advocates of all the other denominations out there thumping you upside the head with their Scriptures and reminding you of the same thing.

Still, if it's any consolation, their Gods are no less incompetent in demonstrating their own existence. It's just that, in my view, the Christian God, if He does exist, must be particularly embarrassed by your efforts here.

I answered this. You should read my answer.

But you have made it abundantly clear that reading your answer is of no value whatsoever unless I read it sincerely. And by sincerely you mean by agreeing with it.

Exactly as they should!
And you, your job is to make the right determination among them, and then to commit to your choice and live by it. And take the results you assign yourself.

Have you done your job?

No, exactly as you should they will tell you. Have you done your job?

Yes.

Have you?

Well, I watched those videos a few times. I thought I watched them sincerely but obviously I didn't. Because, as you will no doubt insist, no one who does watch them sincerely could ever possibly doubt that in fact they do demonstrate that the Christian God does reside in Heaven.

[Immanuel Can]

But, okay, let's agree that I said it wrong the first time.

You could just have said that.

But I did make my point more specific

Well, you tried to excuse your error, you mean. But I'm not all that interested. I proved what you requested, and you still carry on with it.

There's no drilling a hole in water.

As insulting as your wording is, I answered this. If you don't like my answer, that's one thing; if you didn't read it, it's another.

Okay, instead of piss poor, let's say that the Christian God did an inadequate job of "conveying unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that His is the One True Path."

I don't agree. He made it very clear.

And your answer is "read the Bible".

No, it's read specifically the explanation of that found in Romans 1.

What, we should just read the Book of John and take His account of it?

Please show me where I said "we should just read the Book of John?"

And if I never said it, why did you?

Note to others:

Ah, a quick running for the hills?

IC never did say "we should just read the Book of John." Biggie made it up.

Well, I watched those videos a few times. I thought I watched them sincerely but obviously I didn't.

Did you imagine that videos would be the equivalent of the Word of God, so that sincerity was guaranteed to produce understanding of videos? You're too trusting. All they are is a philosopher's approach to the topic, from whatever knowledge he/she has to offer, to help you think through these things in a secular way. But they do contain really good arguments, if you're paying attention.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Romans 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

My view? I disbelieve that the advent of Jesus is the advent of ‘salvation’. But I do not dismiss the notion of salvation. As it happens I define salvation (sotiría) differently. It must include everything connoted by vidya. If it existed, if it exists, it had to exist eternally. I do not therefore admit or allow that salvation came or comes *from Jesus* nor Yahweh. Were I to do that I would have to negate other people’s notions and means of living through vidya.

So the Hebrew self-assertion about their exclusive arrangement with god … I take as a false claim. I can’t go along with it. In fact I believe that the notion, the construct, must be dismantled. The problem though is that Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism all subscribe to that Hebrew exclusiveness. In fact Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism all seem to require an opposition.

I’d rather go with *the Greek* in the sense of an intelligible theology. And here again is one of those sensible quotes that speak to me:

Professional noisemakers of every class will always prefer the anarchy of intoxication of the mystics to the clear and ordered intelligence of the priests, that is, of the Church. I regret at not being able to join them in this preference either. I am prevented by a matter of truthfulness. It is this: I think that any theology transmits to us much more of God, greater insights and ideas about divinity, than the combined ecstasies of all the mystics; because, instead of approaching the ecstatic skeptically, we must take the mystic at his word, accept what he brings us from his transcendental immersions, and then see if what he offers us is worth while. The truth is that, after we accompany him on his sublime voyage, what he succeeds in communicating to us is a thing of little consequence. I think that the European soul is approaching a new experience of God and new inquiries into that most important of all realities. I doubt very much, however, if the enrichment of our ideas about divine matters will emerge from the mystic's subterranean roads rather than from the luminous paths of discursive thought. Theology---not ecstasy!"

I wonder if I’m contradicting myself?

[attofishpi]

The moral codes that religions enshrine are the most functional components of any religion. (Mythologies and ritual practices are superstructures.) Moral philosophy is arguably the most important branch of philosophy.

I also claim Jesus of Nazareth was a philosopher whose life and work supported the view of the Prophets in opposition to the view of the Kings.

The mystical, the supernatural, the magical events on which all religions are based prove difficult to rationalize philosophically in our modernity.

I find it very much the opposite. With current and pending technology - such as A.I. we CAN now comprehend an all knowing 'intelligent' entity.

Mount SINAI - SIN_AI?

But the moral questions raised in Judaism, Vedanta or Buddhism can certainly be philosophized.

The Christian view or attitude (way of life) can also be a philosophical position it seems to me. But it falls apart or its foundations disintegrate when examined critically.

Er, how will you disintegrate my Christian faith? Go ahead, try me.

[attofishpi]

The moral codes that religions enshrine are the most functional components of any religion. (Mythologies and ritual practices are superstructures.) Moral philosophy is arguably the most important branch of philosophy.

I also claim Jesus of Nazareth was a philosopher whose life and work supported the view of the Prophets in opposition to the view of the Kings.

So, you believe that Jesus existed and went to his death claiming to be the son of God and went to his death for sticking to that statement, but believe he was a liar?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Er, how will you disintegrate my Christian faith? Go ahead, try me.

I say that upon close and critical examination ‘the feet’ crumble (disintegrate). By feet I mean: the Adam & Eve story. The Exile from a Garden as God’s naughty pets. Pretty much on down the line.

[Immanuel Can]

If it existed, if it exists, it had to exist eternally.

Like the universe...which verifiably, empirically, scientificatlly DIDN'T?

Or you? Or me? Or anything material at all?

Only one "thing" exists eternally. And He's not a "thing."

[attofishpi]

Er, how will you disintegrate my Christian faith? Go ahead, try me.

I say that upon close and critical examination ‘the feet’ crumble (disintegrate). By feet I mean: the Adam & Eve story. The Exile from a Garden as God’s naughty pets. Pretty much on down the line.

Oh. Well when you get to the stuff about Christianity - Christ's life let me know. God couldn't break my faith, so I do_u_BT you will.

www.androcies.com

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I described is the ‘base’ of the Christian story Appofish. I am not sure that you understand what I mean. The Advent of Jesus culminates the Adam & Eve expulsion (or nearly so).

[Alexis Jacobi]

If it existed, if it exists, it had to exist eternally.

Like the universe...which verifiably, empirically, scientificatlly DIDN'T?

Or you? Or me? Or anything material at all?

Only one "thing" exists eternally. And He's not a "thing."

Existence always existed. There can logically be no non-existence.

The apparent beginning of things, according to the picture you refer to, did not begin existence.

Because existence is eternal. There is no possible opposite to it.

Sat is the Sanskrit term.

Sat (Sanskrit: सत्) is the root of many Sanskrit words and concepts such as sattva, "pure, truthful", and satya, "truth". The Sanskrit root sat has several meanings or translations:.

"absolute truth"
"reality"
"Brahman" (not to be confused with Brahmin)
"unchangeable"
"that which has no distortion"
"that which is beyond distinctions of time, space, and person"
"that which pervades the universe in all its constancy"

The negation of sat is asat, a combination word of a and sat. Asat refers to the opposite of sat, that is delusion, distorted, untrue, fleeting impression that is incorrect, invalid and false. The concepts of sat and asat are famously expressed in the Pavamana Mantra found in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad.

Asato mā sad gamaya / tamaso mā jyotir gamaya / mṛtyor mā amṛtam gamaya

"lead me from delusion to truth; from darkness to light; from mortality to immortality"

Sat is one of the three characteristics of Brahman as described in sat-chit-ananda. This association between sat, 'truth', and Brahman, ultimate reality, is also expressed in Hindu cosmology, wherein Satyaloka, the highest heaven of Hindu cosmology, is the abode of Brahman.

Coherent ideas that, in my view, elucidate and clarify much in Christianity that is badly presented and misunderstood.

[attofishpi]

What I described is the ‘base’ of the Christian story Appofish. I am not sure that you understand what I mean. The Advent of Jesus culminates the Adam & Eve expulsion (or nearly so).

Oh. U want to de_feet me by insisting I be a daft form of Christian?

Certainly some stories within the OT are worth intellectually analysing..

For example this line of Genesis:
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Obviously the Sun did not 'pop' into existence based on an entity talking, a ridiculous notion...unless it is indeed a virtual 'Sun' and God is an AI. (the last question Asimov)

So right at the outset in that line two things stand out to me. 1. God appears to be asking another entity to permit light. 2. Obviously the universe did not come into existence based on spoken words - ergo, seems apparent that God is wanting us to QUESTION the validity of the rest of the entire Bible (I don't buy_bull - I question everything - God made me intelligent, so I shall use my intelligence )

[Immanuel Can]

Existence always existed.

"Existence" is an attribution, not a "thing." "Redness" or "heaviness" are also attributions: not everything has them, and there was a time when nothing did.

Some "things" have it, and some "things" don't. Only one Entity has always had it, and always will.

You are not that Entity. The universe is not that Entity. That's empirically certain.

[Dubious]

Fools all of them and doomed as well!

Not by any account you can possibly give.

Not necessary! You gave them all yourself already, many times since long ago. You should give yourself a high five! If it weren't for you and the low-class entertainment value you so generously provide, this incredibly stupid thread would have died a long time ago. But obviously maggots like to crawl over the same dung hill over & over again.

[Belinda]

The moral codes that religions enshrine are the most functional components of any religion. (Mythologies and ritual practices are superstructures.) Moral philosophy is arguably the most important branch of philosophy.

I also claim Jesus of Nazareth was a philosopher whose life and work supported the view of the Prophets in opposition to the view of the Kings.

So, you believe that Jesus existed and went to his death claiming to be the son of God and went to his death for sticking to that statement, but believe he was a liar?

"Son of God" to a practising and believing Jew meant and means a devotee of the God.

It's similar sort of trope to "Daughter of the Revolution" or "Son of a gun" or "Mother of all souls".

[attofishpi]

The moral codes that religions enshrine are the most functional components of any religion. (Mythologies and ritual practices are superstructures.) Moral philosophy is arguably the most important branch of philosophy.

I also claim Jesus of Nazareth was a philosopher whose life and work supported the view of the Prophets in opposition to the view of the Kings.

So, you believe that Jesus existed and went to his death claiming to be the son of God and went to his death for sticking to that statement, but believe he was a liar?

"Son of God" to a practising and believing Jew meant and means a devotee of the God.

What about the bit where he confimed he was the Christ? Still just a liar?