Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 14050
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:49 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:45 pm We've heard this misogynist-dripping speech from you before. It's so easy to see who you are when you take your frilly white gloves off. :lol: Many religious leaders like to 'dress themselves up' (through word or deed). But such costuming is only impressive to those who follow (and rely on) superficial expressions.
Then why didn't you learn? Why did you immediately lapse back into exactly the same irrelevancies with which so many women are so unfairly charged?

Why do you give so much aid-and-comfort to those who would dismiss you?
This is why you hide in theism. You are incapable of making sense outside of the bubble you've crafted to glorify yourself.
Back to the ad hominem again, with no reference to the question.

You can see why a rational interlocutor won't bother with you, Lace. You don't know the difference between and argument and an insult, it seems.

One day, I hope you understand yourself better: but that day is not today, apparently. So I wish you well, but have nothing more I can offer you.
uwot
Posts: 5686
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Christianity

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:10 pmY'know, there are men who say that women cannot manage critical thought.
Y'know, there are people who know what they are talking about who say that religious nuts cannot manage critical thought.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:10 pmThey say that the poor dears instead inevitably think that personalities, not facts, determine truth.
Well, there are religious nuts who insist that Jesus Christ is the truth.
Dontaskme
Posts: 11762
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

uwot wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:10 pmY'know, there are men who say that women cannot manage critical thought.
Y'know, there are people who know what they are talking about who say that religious nuts cannot manage critical thought. 😂
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:10 pmThey say that the poor dears instead inevitably think that personalities, not facts, determine truth.
Well, there are religious nuts who insist that Jesus Christ is the truth. 😂


He loves the smell of his own farts. 🤢
uwot
Posts: 5686
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Christianity

Post by uwot »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:05 pmIf you only discuss the ideas themselves, if that is possible, it makes the conversation more productive.
Wake up Gus. Christian ideas are simple:
To be conceived is to be guilty.
Knock yourself out - have a productive conversation with a fuckwit who believes that.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

uwot wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:08 pmWake up Gus. Christian ideas are simple:

To be conceived is to be guilty.

Knock yourself out - have a productive conversation with a fuckwit who believes that.
Well, what you could not understand, obviously, is that the idea or the concept that you are speaking about, which you dismiss absolutely (and for your own reasons naturally, and within a social and cultural context that can't, or won't, examine the idea in depth (for a group of reasons), is an idea that I have mulled over. In thought of course but also on other levels (intuitively, internally, subjectively).

In a basic sense I accept the idea as *being true*. I put a different twist on it, and in a way expand the idea, which amounts to a way to open up the idea to consideration. But the way I do this is somewhat outlandish and, also, I borrow from other religious traditions.

I believe that souls enter this world through an inconceivable process. Yes, it is through biological conception, but in the sense of my understanding that is a *superficial* sense of it. A soul enters this domain of experience, which means the flesh-body, through processes of what I might call *attraction*. All kinds of souls are, allow me to say, attracted to this specific sphere (the notion of loka or 'planet' can help in the conception of what I mean). Yet since I see in all creation, and the entire cosmic manifestation, endless possibilities and non-limitation of possibilities, I speculate, or intuit, that any number of similar planes of manifestation, lokas or planets, may well exist. [Loka (Sanskrit: लोक) is a concept in Indian religions, that means plane or realm of existence.]

So, how it happens that a given soul -- I refer to you or to me or to anyone -- arrives here, that is, incarnates into a body that carries it and births it, my sense is that there are many many mysteries connected with that.

The notion of 'conceived in sin' or 'born in sin' is an idea that (of course only if one is inclined to do so) one that can be sounded out. But I know of no other way that this could be carried out except one that is subjective and intuitive.

I see the very nature of the world, the ecological systems of the natural world, as encasing the rather terrible situation we are really in, if we take time to examine it. To be thrust into the natural world, like an animal, is to be thrust into a cruel world where 'biological machinery' determines everything. That world is merciless and in that world beings feed on other beings. Because this is inevitable, one is bound-into this system when one arrives here (in one way or another, to one degree or another). So just in that basic sense one is 'born into a sinful world' or born into circumstances where *sin* is inevitable.

But how to explain 'guilt'? Or how to explain debt and/or incarnation, here, as 'punishment'? Because obviously in this sense the Fall is punishment and also simply consequence. But what is that debt or punishment? How did this happen?

It requires a comparative perspective to work this idea out. So, there must be worlds (planes of experience) that are either far *better* and less inflicted compared to ours, or simultaneously far more difficult, far more torturous, and in this sense far more punishing.

I recognize that these are very old metaphysical notions, and I recognize as well that they are Stories told about life. In the sense that DontAskMe seems to mean, all such ideas are notions "painted thinly on the void" (to quote an Incredible String Band song).

There seems to me a certain definite advantage that can be gained by entertaining a deeper examination of these sort of ideas. Yet I also recognize that they can be simply dismissed by those without the inclination in this direction. It is a tendency of certain people to do this, I have noticed. And for some there is absolutely no sense to the endeavor.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 pm When the ideas don't make sense, do you not question what the person is doing and why?
I look at the whole thing differently. Here in any case is a song I like quite a bit.

It is the sort of music my parents used to play all the time. Maybe this is what drove me insane?

(And I do not wear powdered wigs! -- yet).
Dubious
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:35 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:46 pm
This is the key issue: is what the Bible says true?
Right. Despite all that we can see throughout humankind's history and diversity (past and present) that does not support certain unquestionable 'truth' (let alone supremacy) of the archaic Bible accounting, there are continually those who will deny and distort all that's more broadly seen/witnessed in order to make absolute declarations and insist that they know (and represent) the divine more than other people do. Their claims and beliefs of what they know are dependent on ignoring ALL ELSE that is and can be known. How credible and truthful and demented is that?
If we assume that all you say above is true, it still does not answer the question: is what the Bible says true?

Whatever you take that answer to be, you will not find the answer in calling people "demented" or speaking of "those who deny" anything, or "humankind's history," or the "ignorant" "they". You'll only find out by weighing the claims the Bible makes.

All else is simply irrelevant to the question.
No! Not by any criteria! Does that answer the question?
Since most of the Bible is bunk from beginning to end what it claims must also be bunk. Why?? Because one can claim anything as long as proof or a degree thereof is not required or even asked for, in fact, positively to be avoided. Based on that formula you can claim that you worship spiderman as the incarnation of the Holy Ghost which isn't any different from worshipping a back alley, rabble-rousing preacher.


You asked. The answer is given!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 14050
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:35 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:27 pm
Right. Despite all that we can see throughout humankind's history and diversity (past and present) that does not support certain unquestionable 'truth' (let alone supremacy) of the archaic Bible accounting, there are continually those who will deny and distort all that's more broadly seen/witnessed in order to make absolute declarations and insist that they know (and represent) the divine more than other people do. Their claims and beliefs of what they know are dependent on ignoring ALL ELSE that is and can be known. How credible and truthful and demented is that?
If we assume that all you say above is true, it still does not answer the question: is what the Bible says true?

Whatever you take that answer to be, you will not find the answer in calling people "demented" or speaking of "those who deny" anything, or "humankind's history," or the "ignorant" "they". You'll only find out by weighing the claims the Bible makes.

All else is simply irrelevant to the question.
No! Not by any criteria! Does that answer the question?
No, of course not.

An answer is not justified by the enthusiasm, size or colour in which it's offered, anymore than an argument is refuted by insulting the speaker, of course.

Here's what does answer it: what are your "criteria" in deciding that?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 14050
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:20 pm (And I do not wear powdered wigs! -- yet).
She's got me thinking about it.

I think maybe an "Enlightenment Era" outfit would suit me fine. It worked for Kant. I understand he really pulled in the chicks. :wink:
Dubious
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:02 am
Dubious wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:35 pm
If we assume that all you say above is true, it still does not answer the question: is what the Bible says true?

Whatever you take that answer to be, you will not find the answer in calling people "demented" or speaking of "those who deny" anything, or "humankind's history," or the "ignorant" "they". You'll only find out by weighing the claims the Bible makes.

All else is simply irrelevant to the question.
No! Not by any criteria! Does that answer the question?
No, of course not.

An answer is not justified by the enthusiasm, size or colour in which it's offered, anymore than an argument is refuted by insulting the speaker, of course.

Here's what does answer it: what are your "criteria" in deciding that?
Logic, reason, history, archaeology, biblical research and not least science itself. All the things, and then some, that were mentioned a thousand times with no effect on a brain lobotomized of ALL its normal critical faculties.

Also, and certainly not least, what the Bible itself mentions as the very act that got Jesus into trouble with the Romans. But you probably have no clue as to what this means.

Feel free to again indulge your persecution complex by claiming a few ad homs. :cry:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 14050
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:31 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:02 am
Dubious wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:54 pm

No! Not by any criteria! Does that answer the question?
No, of course not.

An answer is not justified by the enthusiasm, size or colour in which it's offered, anymore than an argument is refuted by insulting the speaker, of course.

Here's what does answer it: what are your "criteria" in deciding that?
Logic, reason, history, archaeology, biblical research and not least science itself.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope...aaaaaand...nope. :D

I'm surprised, Dube...you don't seem to have a single thing in your quiver. Certainly, just mentioning the names of things does not turn them into "criteria." And you did promise that "by any criteria" you could make your case.
Dubious
Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:07 am
Dubious wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:31 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:02 am
No, of course not.

An answer is not justified by the enthusiasm, size or colour in which it's offered, anymore than an argument is refuted by insulting the speaker, of course.

Here's what does answer it: what are your "criteria" in deciding that?
Logic, reason, history, archaeology, biblical research and not least science itself.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope...aaaaaand...nope. :D

I'm surprised, Dube...you don't seem to have a single thing in your quiver. Certainly, just mentioning the names of things does not turn them into "criteria." And you did promise that "by any criteria" you could make your case.
You're a real Road Runner when it comes to logic aren't you, never looking down, knowing that if you allowed your brain to talk back instead of only the bible you'd no-longer be standing on solid ground. As Zarathustra would say, I wonder how long you can keep it up before looking down. :lol:

In case your English is weak, by criteria is meant the results, the output of the disciplines mentioned and many more not mentioned...meaning all those you clearly prefer not to be mentioned as compared to the written word of the bible.

Also, where did I promise, "by any criteria" I could make my case? Show me where I made that statement!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 14050
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:07 am
Dubious wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:31 am

Logic, reason, history, archaeology, biblical research and not least science itself.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope...aaaaaand...nope. :D

I'm surprised, Dube...you don't seem to have a single thing in your quiver. Certainly, just mentioning the names of things does not turn them into "criteria." And you did promise that "by any criteria" you could make your case.
...by criteria is meant the results...
Then you don't know what a "criterion" is. A criterion is the standard by which a thing is to be judged. It is not, itself a conclusion. But I really don't think I should have to explain something so rudimentary to you...

As for when you promised, your can find your own words to that effect in large, coloured print. You did that yourself.
Dontaskme
Posts: 11762
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:30 am Then you don't know what a "criterion" is. A criterion is the standard by which a thing is to be judged. It is not, itself a conclusion. But I really don't think I should have to explain something so rudimentary to you...
''You don't know''...imply's a ''Knower''

The ''You'' can NEVER know ''a knower'' ....But I really don't think I should have to explain something so rudimentary to you...

Just keep talking to yourself IC, that imaginary other one that ONLY you have created.

The rest is HISTORY...aka dead stuff...only dead fish follow the stream. :shock:
uwot
Posts: 5686
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Christianity

Post by uwot »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:58 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:08 pmWake up Gus. Christian ideas are simple:

To be conceived is to be guilty.

Knock yourself out - have a productive conversation with a fuckwit who believes that.
Well, what you could not understand, obviously, is that the idea or the concept that you are speaking about, which you dismiss absolutely (and for your own reasons naturally, and within a social and cultural context that can't, or won't, examine the idea in depth (for a group of reasons), is an idea that I have mulled over. In thought of course but also on other levels (intuitively, internally, subjectively).
Easy on the guaro Gus, your bollocks are showing. The "social and cultural context" you blame for my lack of acquiescence fundamentally is the idea you claim I can't, or won't examine in depth. I don't merely examine the idea Gus, I live it.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:58 pmIn a basic sense I accept the idea as *being true*.
Well it is functional; it does not follow that it is true, at least at the fringe of the social and cultural context I find myself in. Of course, I appreciate that starry bookends qualify *being true*, but now it could mean anything.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:58 pmI put a different twist on it, and in a way expand the idea, which amounts to a way to open up the idea to consideration. But the way I do this is somewhat outlandish and, also, I borrow from other religious traditions.
And why not? The fundamental questions are the same everywhere and anytime.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:58 pmI believe that souls enter this world through an inconceivable process.
And you can build an entire philosophy on that premise, all of it perfectly coherent and logically valid. You might even persuade yourself that it is true, with or without asterisks. If that happens, you might start believing that you are right. The reality is that you don't know, but the more you think you know, the more detached from reality you become.
Post Reply