Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

And I will say it again

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 65811.ch45

You are fundamentally devious and dishonest.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/reso ... minem.html

[iambiguous]

Pro, and others like him, in-forum, think we're all just animals, that morality is a joke, and that people like you, Mannie, me, Walker, etc., are fools.

Just for the record, we are all animals. And morality only becomes a joke, some insist, when you are actually able to convince yourself that of all the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of moral narratives that have been configured into arrogant, authoritarian dogmas down through the centuries, only yours really is the One True Path...

Do they ever really sit down and, introspectively, think that through?

Well, let's do that. Let's "sit down" and "introspectively think through" that claim.

It goes, "To believe there is any singular moral truth is to make morality into a joke." It's to be "arrogant, authoritarian" and "dogmatic."

First of all, I noted that some insist this is the case. My own frame of mind revolves more around the assumption that religious beliefs are rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. Including Immanuel Can's own.

And, given that there have been hundreds and hundreds of moral and spiritual narratives championed down through the centuries...paths that were clearly in the vicinity of arrogance, dogma and authoritarian certainty, how is his own any different?

Let's get this straight. Is he acknowledging that his own belief in the Christian God is just another existential leap of faith? Re say Kierkegaard, Pascal and others?

Or is he telling us that he knows the Christian God does in fact exist? That, unless others accept Jesus Christ as their savior, it won't go well for them at Judgment Day?

Again: what does he know with any degree of certainty here and what is he able to demonstrate that others can know with certainty in turn?

WITH SO MUCH AT STAKE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE GRAVE

Let him note for us what he construes to be the soundest proof that it is his God and not one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

....instead. Introspectively as it were.

So...to believe this requires that we first believe a prior premise. That premise is, that believing one's morals are right is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Okay, let him note a context [like abortion] and apply this to himself.

And it's absolutely, objectively, indisputably wrong to be "arrogant, authoritarian and dogmatic," as well. We have to believe that, too.

I don't get it. Many Christians will tell us that God's Commandments and His Word in the Bible are the basis for objective morality on this side of the grave. And, in turn, they tell us that unless we obey them we might burn for all of eternity in Hell on the other side.

How about IC? Does he agree?

And if that is true why wouldn't one be absolutely adamant in preaching Christianity? Isn't that precisely the basis for proselytizing, for becoming Christian missionaries? Souls themselves are at stake!!

But other religious denominations, while basically agreeing with that, insist that it is their own One True Path that will save your soul.

Why his path and not their path? Let him give us what he construes to be the best argument and evidence there is to bring the infidels around. And let him really go deeply introspective here, okay?

Instead, in my view, he stays up in his "general description intellectual/spiritual clouds":

If you don't believe these things, then the statement is not believable itself. It would not be any indictment of "making morality into a joke" if deciding on a single moral truth, or being "arrogant, etc." were not objectively wrong. So it has to be.

The author of such a claim believes in an objective moral precept: namely, that declaring support for a singular morality is wrong. That's his 10-Commandments-in-one, if you like: his absolute moral bedrock.

So now, let's "introspect."

Where did he get this confidence that being committed to objective morality is wrong? And is he only subjectively committed to it, or does he think it's absolute and beyond doubt?


And what we quickly see is that his veneer of inclusiveness and tolerance is something he does not practice himself. Rather, he's "dogmatic, arrogant and authoritarian" toward anybody who believes in a singular morality.

He's run afoul of his own moral absolute, in other words. He's "hoist with his own petard," to use the Shakespearean metaphor. He's failed to introspect, and unilaterally declared other people wrong, even while claiming to be open-minded.

Oh how the worm turns, when one lives and dies on his own counsel.

Let's bring this down to Earth. A context in which conflicting moral and spiritual narratives are pervasive around the globe.



Note to others:

You tell me what you think this has to do with the points I was attempting to convey to Henry.

And, to the best of my recollection, while Henry advised me that he and IC had "privately" discussed their two very, very different Gods, I think they should bring that discussion here.

Given particular circumstantial contexts which can generate conflicts, how do they agree and differ about "morality here and now" and "immortality and salvation" there and then?

[Immanuel Can]

First of all, I noted that some insist this is the case.

So...it's nothing that you believe is actually true, then.

My own frame of mind revolves more around the assumption that religious beliefs are rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. Including Immanuel Can's own.

But if you only assert this "subjectively" as you say, then all it means is, "It seems from where I sit that X is looks so." But it entails no obligation or even reason for anybody else to believe it or to see things the same way.

Happy with that? Is that all you meant? Then I'm fine with receiving that, too: I have no problem that, from where you sit, all kinds of things may seem so to you.

If you meant more, then you have to mean it "objectively." And in that case, you can make an argument that people have an obligation to believe you, or there's a rational course they should be following that would compel the same conclusion -- but then, you've just become a dogmatist of the kind you deplore yourself.

Which way do you want to be? Do you want to dogmatic or impotent? Because those are the choices you've given yourself.

[iambiguous]

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path

If you understand why the ONE cannot be proven by discursive thought, you are closer to the truth. God IS while creation follows the process of existence. Can you sense the difference?

I don't know how to make myself any clearer. My interest in the Christian God revolves around the fact that, morally, "I" am "fractured and fragmented" given the arguments I make in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

We are all fractured and fragmented. This is the human condition. We are not one with inner unity. We have no I. Rather we are composed of many small i's. We are many. "I Am" is the potential for human being on earth. You have experienced the norm for our being

Again, I am only interested in taking abstract "intellectual/spiritual contraptions" like this out into the world of actual conflicting human interactions. And with God and religion that revolves around connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

And to suggest that human identity as I understand it myself in being a moral nihilist in a No God world is as much "the norm" as the Self/Soul that religious adherents embrace is nothing short of mind-boggling to me.

Again, choose a particular set of circumstances most here will be familiar with and let's compare and contrast our thinking.

Or, again, move on to others here more inclined to explore your own assumptions about religion.

And given the fact that, existentially, oblivion is more or less right around the corner for me. Christians argue that an objective morality can be embodied if one accepts Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior. And that oblivion is not the fate of "I" at all...that immortality and salvation await those who become faithful Christians.

It isn't a matter of acceptance but experiencing metanoia. Christianity isn't about what we do but rather what we are. A person must experience the need for the Christ and the Holy Spirit.

You seem completely incapable [to me] of discussing religion other than in these abstract homilies. If I do say so myself.

Over and out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's irrelevant to the question of the rightness or wrongness of any particular statement he has made. And it's not relevant to the question of whether or not particular propositions he has stated are true or false.

You can heap up any petty insults you wish...and you already have. You can be as imperious and dismissive as you can manage. But nothing will make such allegations relevant to the rightness or wrongness of a proposition.

Furthermore, I'm certain you now know that. You could check any definition of ad hominem fallacy, and find out, if you didn't. And if you don't, shame on you for not finding out by now. So I'm going to assume you're intelligent, but that you're simply weaseling at the moment. The alternative, that you're not bright enough to know or find out what ad hominem means, seems untenable.

As I see things this is merely more diversionary tactic on your part. If you can latch on to an accusation of ad hominem, then you can avoid the entire group of views, ideas and perspectives that were brought out. That you do this, again in my view, reveals your core dishonesty. And your dishonesty is contemptible.

Quoted from the page you submitted:

Ad Hominem (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

As I have clearly explained, and necessarily so, your religious fanaticism, the understructure to the views that you present, needs to be examined as such. A free and open enquiry is needed in order to see this, and explain this, while also including any specific assertion you make. My view is that there is no way around this. However, I do make it clear that we must do this fairly and maturely. My view is that as it pertains to the Culture Wars, and to the conflicts that are going on around us, and the conflicts and differences that we encounter in these conversations, that we have to include a wide range of things and not merely and not only the precise enunciated positions. And to this end I have been discussing factors and elements that pertain precisely to what I assert is important.

The operative word there is 'irrelevantly'. It would be accurate for you to say my presentation has been 'ad hominem' if I called you out or attacked you personally for the size of your hat, the color of your car, or any number of different things. This is all very clear and undeniable.

But the tack I have chosen recently is to locate you within certain religious structures, and the ideas and patterns of ideas that inform the way people, these people, and potentially you, organize your perception about the world. So there is certainly nothing wrong with calling attention or focusing on these structures of ideas, these views & beliefs, and how they have come to be part of the bedrock from which you make specific assertions.

So talking in this way about the sorts of ideas we have, and why we have them, is productive, necessary and as I say mature.

You can be as imperious and dismissive as you can manage. But nothing will make such allegations relevant to the rightness or wrongness of a proposition.

Actually everything that I have recently written (and I admire the attempt to assign the terms imperious and dismissive!) all functions together as a whole. It must be taken as such. It is one thing merely to shout some name-accusation (devious, dishonest) and quite another to show, with examples, where and how that dishonesty operates.

The example that I found relevant was the entire way you approached the Genesis story (Adam & Eve). It is dishonest to state that it had to do with a 'original mating pair', it was devious and evasive never to explain, in your own terms, how it is that you take the story literally and to refer to books that must be ordered, delivered and read before 'the truth' could be understood. Your entire demeanor there was dishonest through-and-through.

The issue of what, in fact, the Adam & Eve story is really about -- that entire question is a separate one.

But even if you were, by way of character, world's worst weasel, that would not tell me whether your particular claims were right or wrong. At least I know that. Funny that you don't.

Well I find this interesting. It is worthy of exploration. I definitely see that accusation of *weasel!*, with no back-up explanation, with no references to weaselness, as irrelevant and tactically distracting. So I agree with you. But if you found some argument that I made to be weaselly, and you explained why, I do not think I would have a problem with that term. It is fair game.

So again I return to your weaselly argument about Adam & Eve. Ultimately, I know, your assertion is that no matter what, no matter what argument is brought out, you believe the story to be precisely true (and not metaphor or allegory). You said as much ("of course I believe it" you exclaimed). And what I do here is merely, and only, to point out some of my observations about the conversation that has been going on here.

Still I do appreciate your focus on the term ad hominem and bravo to the new one: filibuster. You will get great mileage out of both of them for many posts to come!

[Immanuel Can]

As I see things this is merely more diversionary tactic on your part.

Nobody cares. This objection is merely ad hominem.

So talking in this way about the sorts of ideas we have, and why we have them, is productive, necessary and as I say mature.

Talking about the ideas is mature. Talking about the speaker is ad hominem.

But even if you were, by way of character, world's worst weasel, that would not tell me whether your particular claims were right or wrong. At least I know that. Funny that you don't.

Well I find this interesting. It is worthy of exploration. I definitely see that accusation of *weasel!*,

Did you understand the word "if"?

When it is at the beginning of a sentence, it creates what's called "a hypothetical." A hypothetical claim is one that is not necessarily assumed to be true. And the point is, true or not, in this case, it makes no difference.

But you'll lapse right back into the ad hominem shortly, I expect. It's all you've got, because it seems you can't afford for us to question your theory. If we do, it will come apart like tissue in water.

[henry quirk]

Tell you what: when the conversation makes its way back to Christianity, somebody drop me a line.

The current back & forth is borin' the piss outta me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Tell you what: when the conversation makes its way back to Christianity, somebody drop me a line.

The current back & forth is borin' the piss outta me.

Understood. My view? Dear IC established the present line to avoid responding and interacting with 3 recent posts. I’ll link to them later. Sun’s shining. The bicycle is getting anxious!

[Immanuel Can]

Tell you what: when the conversation makes its way back to Christianity, somebody drop me a line.

The current back & forth is borin' the piss outta me.

Me too.

[Nick_A]

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path

If you understand why the ONE cannot be proven by discursive thought, you are closer to the truth. God IS while creation follows the process of existence. Can you sense the difference?

I don't know how to make myself any clearer. My interest in the Christian God revolves around the fact that, morally, "I" am "fractured and fragmented" given the arguments I make in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

We are all fractured and fragmented. This is the human condition. We are not one with inner unity. We have no I. Rather we are composed of many small i's. We are many. "I Am" is the potential for human being on earth. You have experienced the norm for our being

Again, I am only interested in taking abstract "intellectual/spiritual contraptions" like this out into the world of actual conflicting human interactions. And with God and religion that revolves around connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

And to suggest that human identity as I understand it myself in being a moral nihilist in a No God world is as much "the norm" as the Self/Soul that religious adherents embrace is nothing short of mind-boggling to me.

Again, choose a particular set of circumstances most here will be familiar with and let's compare and contrast our thinking.

Or, again, move on to others here more inclined to explore your own assumptions about religion.

And given the fact that, existentially, oblivion is more or less right around the corner for me. Christians argue that an objective morality can be embodied if one accepts Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior. And that oblivion is not the fate of "I" at all...that immortality and salvation await those who become faithful Christians.

It isn't a matter of acceptance but experiencing metanoia. Christianity isn't about what we do but rather what we are. A person must experience the need for the Christ and the Holy Spirit.

You seem completely incapable [to me] of discussing religion other than in these abstract homilies. If I do say so myself.

Over and out.

A religion initiating with a conscious source needs a foundation to build upon to return home. For Christianity we are slaves to sin. You may consider it an abstract homily but a seeker of truth verifies it through efforts to impartially and consciously know thyself, to have the experience of oneself. Once we have verified what we are, the question becomes what the path to freedom is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Tell you what: when the conversation makes its way back to Christianity, somebody drop me a line.

The current back & forth is borin' the piss outta me.

Christianity, certainly in our present, can only be understood when examined through a broadened approach.

Post one

Post two

[Immanuel Can]

Christianity, certainly in our present, can only be understood when examined through a broadened approach.

Funny.

One of us has a definition of "Christianity," and the other doesn't.

It isn't the one who doesn't who "understands" anything.

[Nick_A]

The most controversial question of the day: What is Christianity? Does conscious humanity exist in which the truth is known? Simone Weil in a personal letter describes how she suffered this question when she was fourteen.

I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

Humanity lives in imagination arguing opinions. But what if there is a small minority not governed by imagination but have become conscious so as to experience human meaning and purpose? They would know what Christianity is as a perennial reality and live according to its precepts as common sense. Is conscious humanity fiction or a reality? Is there a transcendent kingdom or level of reality as Simone describes? My gut feeling is that there is. I'm humble enough to know it doesn't include me.

[Dontaskme]

But what if there is a small minority not governed by imagination but have become conscious so as to experience human meaning and purpose?

That which 'appears' to transcend. NEVER transcended.


''If there were nothing instead of something. Than there would be no laws. And if there were no laws. There would be nothing to prevent something from happening. There for, nothing is self forbidding''

[Belinda]

Tell you what: when the conversation makes its way back to Christianity, somebody drop me a line.

The current back & forth is borin' the piss outta me.

But apart from what millions of individuals believe, say ,and do, does Christianity exist? I mean if you can imagine a world with no people in it, would Christianity exist?