For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Question: If I were to copy and paste here a definition (there are varied ones but they are generally the same) and say *This is what Christianity refers to (or what defines a Christian)" would you consider that valid?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:51 pm Or, you could provide your definition of "Christian" right now, so we who are doubtful could examine it for ourselves, and see if you've got a point.
Your choice.
The definition of Catholic Christianity is different. Would you like me to present that definition?The term “Christian,” as we understand it, refers to anyone, man, woman, or child, who trusts in Jesus Christ as his or her Savior and Lord and who strives to follow Him in every area of life. As evangelicals, we place great stress on the importance of an individual’s personal relationship with Jesus Christ. We believe that this relationship is lived out by way of prayer, study of God’s Word, fellowship with God’s people, and service to others in Jesus’ name. There’s an important sense in which Christian faith has to be expressed in the context of community with other believers. But in the final analysis, it’s an intensely personal and individual matter, not a question of church membership or doctrinal orientation. The Bible backs us up in this regard: ” Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13; Joel 2:32).
That said, we should point out that Focus on the Family has always been on the side of what C. S. Lewis called Mere Christianity. Lewis used this term to refer to that body of core Christian truths which is common to believers from all kinds of church backgrounds. In other words, we are not committed to a particular denominational understanding of what it means to be a “Christian.” We’re an interdenominational ministry, and we strive to remain faithful to the spirit of St. Augustine’s famous motto: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
It’s worth adding that our definition of Christianity also takes serious account of the pronouncements of the historic councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. These councils formulated important theological definitions and made crucial statements about the Trinitarian nature of God and the “hypostatic union” of the human and the divine natures in Jesus Christ. As we see it, these biblical principles are indispensable in gauging the true “Christianness” of any particular body of religious teachings.
To say this another way, we don’t necessarily believe that a “Christian” is simply anybody who claims to “believe in Jesus” and to “follow His teachings.” If this were true, we would have to concede that the Gnostics, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Marcionites, the Docetists, and the first-century Judaizers, and that damned Alexis Jacobi, were also faithful members of the fold. This is something that the writers of the New Testament and the Fathers of the early church were clearly unwilling to do.
No you moron, anyone can access the definition in 2 seconds through Goggle.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:51 pm Your ongoing reticence on the point suggests either that your theory is too fragile to survive such examination, or that even you don't understand it well enough to provide such. I see no other obvious conclusion from that.
HIM:iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:08 pmNote to others:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 8:42 pmWell, 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.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 8:30 pm
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?
There's no drilling a hole in water.
Let's back up...
IC claims that his own belief in the Christian God is not predicated on a leap of faith. He claims to know that He exists. I asked him to provide proof that his God does in fact reside in Heaven as Catholic Christians can prove that the Pope does reside in the Vatican.
What's his proof? Those videos above. And if you watch those videos and still don't believe they prove the existence of the Christian God that's only because you didn't watch them sincerely. You weren't really "paying attention". Now, from my frame of mind, thinking, feeling, saying and doing things sincerely in IC's estimation means thinking, feeling, saying and doing exactly as he does. That is what he means by "proving" whatever anyone requests.
Now, come on, how seriously can you take someone who "thinks" like that? Yet some here do engage him seriously.
So, sure, it might be me. For those who do take him seriously, please attempt to explain why. What actual intellectually sound points is he making about the Christian God? How does everything he claim not eventually get around to the Word? He's right about something because it says so in the Bible. And even when [as I have] you ask him to note where in the Bible, he simply insists that if you read it yourself [sincerely] you'll understand.
For example:
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 8:42 pmAs 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."In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this. Passages such that Christians can go to those adherents of other religious denominations and say, "this proves beyond all doubt that there is ample empirical, material, phenomenological evidence that the Christian God and not your God exists."
In other words, not just stuff out of John and Romans...passages where something is claimed to be true of or about God merely because it is in the Bible.
Thus...
And your answer is "read the Bible".
Okay, note the passage there that those who embrace other Gods can read and think, "that settles it then, the Christian God really is the one true God".Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 8:42 pmNo, it's read specifically the explanation of that found in Romans 1.
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.You were the one who posted those videos when our discussion revolved around demonstrating that the Christian God did in fact reside in Heaven.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 8:42 pmDid 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.
And there you go again: proof that the Christian God does exist is in the Word of God. And the Word of God is proven to be true because it's in the Bible.
That's really all you have, isn't it? Going around and around in that particular circle.
So, all I can wonder is the extent to which you know that you are doing this. If, for example, you have a "condition", your thinking might be such that you are simply unable to grasp it at all. Or you are so intent on wanting to believe what you do because it comforts and consoles you, you are hard wired to think only what accomplishes that.
The mystery of mind itself. The ubiquitous presence of defense mechanisms to anchor us psychologically to the One True Path. And the path itself might be anything, right?
Uh, absolutely shameless?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 8:24 pmRomans 1.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:08 pm In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this.
Yes, it does. And it has nothing to do with an argument. It's simply ad hominem.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:59 pmA pejorative indicates contempt or disapproval.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:51 pm That's the first really true thing you've said in this message: it's simply a "pejorative" you are "using" to avoid dealing with the argument.
Certainly. And you must be aware that it's a philosophical space, one in which you can be asked to define or justify your terms.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:07 pm...you must be aware that given that this is a public space...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:51 pm it's clear you're not interested at all in Christianity itself.
I'd examine it, of course.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:13 pmQuestion: If I were to copy and paste here a definition (there are varied ones but they are generally the same) and say *This is what Christianity refers to (or what defines a Christian)" would you consider that valid?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:51 pm Or, you could provide your definition of "Christian" right now, so we who are doubtful could examine it for ourselves, and see if you've got a point.
Your choice.
But even you, I suspect would not find such a definition compatible with any theory about historical Europe. So even if you still like your theory, you should be able to say which nominally "Christian" groups you mean to refer to, and which not.Aaaaad hominem!Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:27 pmNo you moron...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:51 pm Your ongoing reticence on the point suggests either that your theory is too fragile to survive such examination, or that even you don't understand it well enough to provide such. I see no other obvious conclusion from that.
Actually, I provided it to Age as a rebuttal to his claim that no such article exists. But in fact, I do think people can benefit from a reading of it. Carry on.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 4:20 pm Also, IC recommended above that we read "Does God Exist?" from issue 99 of PN by William Lane Craig. An article that apparently doesn't fall back on the Word to establish God's existence. I'll give it a shot and get back to you.
On the other hand, philosophers [young and old] are "human all too human". In other words, they are confronted with the task of establishing "how one ought to live morally in a world of conflicting goods that ceaselessly unfolds in interactions awash in contingency, chance and change."On April 8, 1966, Time magazine carried a lead story for which the cover was completely black except for three words emblazoned in bright, red letters against the dark background: “IS GOD DEAD?” The story described the so-called ‘Death of God’ movement then current in American theology. But, to paraphrase Mark Twain, it seemed that the news of God’s demise was “greatly exaggerated.” For at the same time that theologians were writing God’s obituary, a new generation of young philosophers was re-discovering His vitality.
Here, of course, I have my own four "factors" to consider:Back in the 1940s and ’50s it was widely believed among philosophers that any talk about God is meaningless, since it is not verifiable by the five senses.
In other words, given a particular context, whatever that means. After all, philosophical conclusions are one thing in regard to the Big Questions...The collapse of this Verificationism was perhaps the most important philosophical event of the twentieth century. Its downfall meant a resurgence of metaphysics, along with other traditional problems of philosophy which Verificationism had suppressed.
Okay, so note the most sophisticated attempts to connect the dots between Christian philosophy and the lives that Christians live given their own interactions with those who embrace a different God...or believe in no God at all.Accompanying this resurgence came something altogether unanticipated: a renaissance of Christian philosophy.
You have no ground to be able to demand anything of anyone else. You regularly avoid cooperating with others when they ask you to answer questions. This was made excruciatingly plain with the interchange between you and Harry.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 4:38 pmCertainly. And you must be aware that it's a philosophical space, one in which you can be asked to define or justify your terms.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:07 pm...you must be aware that given that this is a public space...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:51 pm it's clear you're not interested at all in Christianity itself.
This isn't hard, AJ. What you're being asked to do is absolutely routine.
"Demand"? There was no such thought in my mind. "Reasonable request" is what it was.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:22 pmYou have no ground to be able to demand anything of anyone else.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 4:38 pmCertainly. And you must be aware that it's a philosophical space, one in which you can be asked to define or justify your terms.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 3:07 pm
...you must be aware that given that this is a public space...
This isn't hard, AJ. What you're being asked to do is absolutely routine.
And you are no philosopher.
That's your definition of the people who, you say, shaped Europe?I provided a description of Evangelical Christianity.
In that case, how are my requests below not reasonable?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:42 pm"Demand"? There was no such thought in my mind. "Reasonable request" is what it was.
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."In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this. Passages such that Christians can go to those adherents of other religious denominations and say, "this proves beyond all doubt that there is ample empirical, material, phenomenological evidence that the Christian God and not your God exists."
In other words, not just stuff out of John and Romans...passages where something is claimed to be true of or about God merely because it is in the Bible.
Thus...
And your answer is "read the Bible".
Okay, note the passage there that those who embrace other Gods can read and think, "that settles it then, the Christian God really is the one true God".Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 8:42 pmNo, it's read specifically the explanation of that found in Romans 1.
I answered them. If you didn't like the answer...I don't know what to tell you about that.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:51 pmIn that case, how are my requests below not reasonable?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:42 pm"Demand"? There was no such thought in my mind. "Reasonable request" is what it was.
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."
In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this. Passages such that Christians can go to those adherents of other religious denominations and say, "this proves beyond all doubt that there is ample empirical, material, phenomenological evidence that the Christian God and not your God exists."
In other words, not just stuff out of John and Romans...passages where something is claimed to be true of or about God merely because it is in the Bible.
Thus...
And your answer is "read the Bible".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 8:42 pmNo, it's read specifically the explanation of that found in Romans 1.
Okay, note the passage there that those who embrace other Gods can read and think, "that settles it then, the Christian God really is the one true God".
Okay, an absolutely shameless "condition" it is then.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:42 pmI answered them. If you didn't like the answer...I don't know what to tell you about that.