Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Christianity

Post by DPMartin »

Age wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 8:47 am

The word 'fathered' would refer to the male gendered one of a, particular, species only after that one had created or caused an offspring.


For surely it could also be said and argued; if one’s God is the Creator of all things made then surly what was made has been generated or produced formed and caused by said Creator, hence, Mothered, correct?

Or, if it only works one way here, then we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this', AS WELL. That is; if you are READY and OPEN to DISCUSSING 'this'.


And, WHY, EXACTLY, would it, supposedly, NOT be correct to call the Creator, Mother, or the Mother of all things?

WHY is 'the "Father" a, supposed, recognition of the relationship within and through that just another human being called "jesus christ"?

How, EXACTLY, does the "Father" word work in relationship between, say, "jesus christ" and its Mother?
It was an FYI
what’s all this are you a feminist or something? language is in place to represent concepts of which the human race determines its use. So, argue with all of the human race that uses male for the Creator and Judge. And male for Son of God.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing
So, you don't want to answer the question. This implies that you show favor to non-secularists despite how much of the 'majority' they actually represent. And you like to speak of a 'minority' as if the whole world are secularists who are against the minority. It's a skewed story that glorifies a few and doesn't reflect broader truth.
Man is dual natured. His lower part arise from the earth normal for all animal life. However parts of his higher nature descended from above and explains what the depth of human being is attracted to.

The trouble is that those governed primarily by its lower parts consider the idea as insulting and idiotic and begins to hate its influence. This is biblical and a very deep concept:

John 15: 18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[c]
Do you see yourself as generating a lot of negativity for things you think are corrupt and destructive? Is it really negative that I challenge the toxicity and absurdity in Christianity? I have also expressed appreciation for the good elements that Christianity offers


The ideas I express, essential to Christianity, generate negativity and hatred. You refer to Christendom or man made Christianity and the hypocrisy of its results which are the same as other secular institutions. Some, rather than arguing, try to reason why it is so.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:30 amI may know a lot of things but if I lack value, I lack the force to make use of it. The emotions don’t follow reason. I may know I exist in Plato’s cave but lack the force of will to profit from it. Acquired negative emotions prevent it.

Maybe this makes sense to you somehow, but your idea of value and how this all works is not shared by everyone, and that does not mean that you're right and other people are wrong. You find meaning from certain ideas that have resonated for you, just as other people find meaning from certain ideas that have resonated for them. Can you accept that it doesn't all work for all in a particular way that you imagine?


Delete as a double post
Last edited by Nick_A on Thu Sep 29, 2022 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing
So, you don't want to answer the question. This implies that you show favor to non-secularists despite how much of the 'majority' they actually represent. And you like to speak of a 'minority' as if the whole world are secularists who are against the minority. It's a skewed story that glorifies a few and doesn't reflect broader truth.
Man is dual natured. His lower part arise from the earth normal for all animal life. However parts of his higher nature descended from above and explains what the depth of human being is attracted to.

The trouble is that those governed primarily by its lower parts consider the idea as insulting and idiotic and begins to hate its influence. This is biblical and a very deep concept:

John 15: 18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’

Do you see yourself as generating a lot of negativity for things you think are corrupt and destructive? Is it really negative that I challenge the toxicity and absurdity in Christianity? I have also expressed appreciation for the good elements that Christianity offers

The ideas I express, essential to Christianity, generate negativity and hatred. You refer to Christendom or man made Christianity and the hypocrisy of its results which are the same as other secular institutions. Some, rather than arguing, try to reason why it is so.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:30 I may know a lot of things but if I lack value, I lack the force to make use of it. The emotions don’t follow reason. I may know I exist in Plato’s cave but lack the force of will to profit from it. Acquired negative emotions prevent it.

Maybe this makes sense to you somehow, but your idea of value and how this all works is not shared by everyone, and that does not mean that you're right and other people are wrong. You find meaning from certain ideas that have resonated for you, just as other people find meaning from certain ideas that have resonated for them. Can you accept that it doesn't all work for all in a particular way that you imagine?
Secularism appreciates intellectual value. It admits in chess for example, a 2700 rated player has a quality of understanding chess then the 1600 player. He has a greater value for logic in chess.

Secularism lacks any conception of emotional objective value which is determined by indoctrination and conditioning. It doesn’t distinguish between noesis and fantasy. If it doesn’t distinguish the difference there is no reason to accept it and easier to mock it.
Judgments as to the limitations of where and how the divine is manifested are from the notions of men, and such notions are typically meant to serve and glorify an 'individual self' as right and good.
There are judgements instituded by man and universal judgements intitiated from the beginning ad essential for its purpose

It would be beneficial if people pondered the meaning and purpose of our universe and man within it but that is only for those who believe philosophy is the love of wisdom. Those days are over. Philosophy has devolved into the love of argument and all that goes with it.
I cannot say what works for another, but I can say what doesn't apply to me. And I can appreciate and accept that there is much more to the big picture than what any of us might claim to see or know individually. I challenge such claims that set the claimant above others, and those who claim to be associated with one true god or supreme awareness or 'a special few' which others are not. To me, that's absolutely ridiculous and it's reasonable to challenge it because why wouldn't we all be of the same stuff and accessing the same stuff and manifesting the same stuff? What makes people think they are uniquely separate, and why do they need to feel that way?
People are different. As long as humanity as a whole accepts as normal existing as an unbalanced soul lacking inner harmony and unity, there can be no understanding but just the perpetual arguments over opinions normal for cave life. Only a rare minority has the quality of psych to get beyond this limitation.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

DPMartin wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 8:47 am

The word 'fathered' would refer to the male gendered one of a, particular, species only after that one had created or caused an offspring.


For surely it could also be said and argued; if one’s God is the Creator of all things made then surly what was made has been generated or produced formed and caused by said Creator, hence, Mothered, correct?

Or, if it only works one way here, then we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this', AS WELL. That is; if you are READY and OPEN to DISCUSSING 'this'.


And, WHY, EXACTLY, would it, supposedly, NOT be correct to call the Creator, Mother, or the Mother of all things?

WHY is 'the "Father" a, supposed, recognition of the relationship within and through that just another human being called "jesus christ"?

How, EXACTLY, does the "Father" word work in relationship between, say, "jesus christ" and its Mother?
It was an FYI
And, for your information, One Thing ALONE can NOT create absolutely ANY thing. So, what was "YOUR FYI" could NOT be ACCURATE, that is; in relation to what IS thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'. As I just POINTED OUT and REVEALED.
DPMartin wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm what’s all this are you a feminist or something?
LOL I suggest you ask your questions from a Truly OPEN perspective from now on. That way you can RECEIVE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.
DPMartin wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm language is in place to represent concepts of which the human race determines its use.


And My words and thus language SHOWS and REVEALS WHERE, EXACTLY, the words and thus language, which 'you', human beings, are determined to use, is False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
DPMartin wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm So, argue with all of the human race that uses male for the Creator and Judge. And male for Son of God.
LOL What is there to 'argue' about here, EXACTLY?

I am just QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING 'you', adult human beings, here over WHY 'you' call and label 'God' a 'male gendered thing'?

The reason you gave here is the best one I have SEEN so far. But it still does NOT work.

If, and WHEN, 'you', human beings, come to LEARN and UNDERSTAND who and what the word 'God' refers to, EXACTLY, then, and ONLY THEN, 'you' will ALSO SEE HOW and WHY the 'male gendered' terms WERE used, as well as UNDERSTAND HOW and WHY those terms WERE False, and so Wrong AND Incorrect.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:44 pm So where is your definition?
Dude, I'm using the word "just" in its ordinary sense. If at your age you still don't know what that word means, then I can recommend a browse through an online dictionary or two.

Here are some relevant quotes from the Bible, also using that word (or, rather, a variant of it: "justice"):

"For the LORD is a God of justice." --Excerpted from Isaiah 30:18

"For I, the LORD, love justice" --Excerpted from Isaiah 61:8

"The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love." --Psalms 33:5

All you need to do is apply the meaning of the word in those quotes to its use in my argument.

See? It's not that hard.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:44 pm I don't know whether or not your premise is "true."
It's clear from the Biblical quotes above that on a Christian view, it is true. The first two premises in the argument assume a Christian view so as to show that the Christian view leads to a contradiction.

So, are there any other premises you want to challenge, or are you now willing to concede the argument?
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Harry Baird wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:44 pm So where is your definition?
Dude, I'm using the word "just" in its ordinary sense. If at your age you still don't know what that word means, then I can recommend a browse through an online dictionary or two.

Here are some relevant quotes from the Bible, also using that word (or, rather, a variant of it: "justice"):

"For the LORD is a God of justice." --Excerpted from Isaiah 30:18

"For I, the LORD, love justice" --Excerpted from Isaiah 61:8

"The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love." --Psalms 33:5

All you need to do is apply the meaning of the word in those quotes to its use in my argument.

See? It's not that hard.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:44 pm I don't know whether or not your premise is "true."
It's clear from the Biblical quotes above that on a Christian view, it is true.
OF COURSE 'it' is true. And, what is JUST AS OBVIOUS is that 'your interpretation' is NOT true.

'you', "harry baird", seem to think or BELIEVE that 'your' OWN INTERPRETATION of 'things' is the ONLY WAY to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. Which, is even MORE LAUGHABLE than what occurs at first glance.

Is there absolutely ANY KNOWN WAY that one could SHOW and REVEAL to 'you' that what 'your' OWN INTERPRETATION IS could be wrong?

Or, are 'you' just that CLOSED that 'you' ACTUALLY Truly BELIEVE that 'your' OWN INTERPRETATION of the words in the bible is the ONLY True and Right WAY to LOOK AT and SEE them?
Harry Baird wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 am The first two premises in the argument assume a Christian view so as to show that they lead to a contradiction.
As I continually SAY and POINT OUT, 'assuming' does NOT mean being accurate AT ALL. And, as can be CLEARLY RECOGNIZED and SEEN, the 'first two premises' could be ABSOLUTELY, or even PARTLY Wrong and/or Incorrect. So, once again, it is ALWAYS BETTER, in discussions like this, if one NEVER 'assumes' absolutely ANY thing.

And, if, and WHEN, one seeks out and obtains CLARITY FIRST, then thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth CAN and DOES come to light, and relatively VERY QUICKLY I will add.

Also, and by the way, so-called "christians", "themselves", do NOT even KNOW what 'a "christian" view" IS, EXACTLY. So, the CHANCES of 'you' ASSUMING the Right view would be close enough to being ZERO, we might as well just say IS ZERO.

And, because 'you' could NOT even provide a definition for the word "christian", which would be IN AGREEMENT and would be ACCEPTED here by most, let alone EVERY one, ASSUMING 'you' somehow would KNOW what these so-called, NOT YET AGREED UPON and ACCEPT "christian's" views of 'things' would be EXACTLY, would also be close enough to being ZERO as well.
Harry Baird wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 am So, are there any other premises you want to challenge, or are you now willing to concede the argument?
Your so-called 'premises' are NOT true. Therefore, your so-called 'argument' is NOT sound.

However, and unfortunately for 'you' "harry baird", 'you' are NOT OPEN to SEEING and UNDERSTANDING this Fact.

And this is BECAUSE 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'your' OWN INTERPRETATION of the words in the bible are EXACTLY is and what was MEANT and INTENDED. Which, considering the amount of DISAGREEMENT SHOWN here by "others", SHOWS and REVEALS just how Truly IDIOTIC 'your' ASSUMPTIONS, BELIEFS, and so-called 'arguments' are here.

The reasons WHY "immanuel can" will NOT ACCEPT 'your' OWN INTERPRETATIONS and DEFINITIONS of the words and terms in the bible are BECAUSE they are NOT of "immanuel can's" views, of which "immanuel can" also CLAIMS to be a "christian", AND BECAUSE "immanuel can" although being ABLE to RECOGNIZE and SEE the ABSURDITY and CONTRADICTIONS in 'your' CLAIMS "immanuel can" is in NO WAY ABLE to FIX UP NOR Correct 'your' OWN MISTAKES and Wrong INTERPRETATIONS.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:37 am Again, the only question that matters:
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:18 pm I repeat [my question]: which numbered premise(s) in my argument do you contend are false, and why?
2-6 are False, Wrong, or Incorrect in one way or another.

But BECAUSE you are NOT OPEN to the Fact that this could be true, you will NEVER be ABLE TO SEE and UNDERSTAND the REASONS WHY.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:56 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:22 pm I made my critiques of your argument.
Honestly, you didn't. You just ignored it.
Honestly, I did.

Don't you remember? I said that your critique had no reasonable concept of justice, even while mentioning the word. (I might have easily said the same thing about "mercy" or "love," but did not). I said that you had no element of free will written into your objection, so I asked you if you were a Determinist -- which you never answered. I said you had the wrong conception of "original sin," and you said you did not.

You heard all that, and payed no attention, and just ploughed ahead.

And it's moot, now.

You have the Word of God in front of you. You know what you need to know.

Nothing I say is more important than that. Now it's between you and God. I have no say about the disposition of your soul.

But you do.
'you', "immanuel can", ARE BEING JUDGED RIGHT HERE and NOW, EQUALLY with EVERY one else here, in this forum, and the way 'you' are going "immanuel can" 'you' are 'sinning' the MOST here, which, by your own accord, MEANS that 'you' are going to be TORMENTED MORE than ANY one else, correct?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harry Baird wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:44 pm So where is your definition?
Dude, I'm using the word "just" in its ordinary sense.
There is no "ordinary sense" that everybody agrees with. That's why we have courts: because what is actually "just" in a given situation is not obvious, and needs a lot of deliberation. And that's why "social justice" people are always complaining that what they have from the "justice" system isn't "justice."

You know this. You're trying to avoid giving your definition. But it's your claim: and it is you that must fill out its content. Nobody else is going to help you.
Here are some relevant quotes from the Bible, also using that word (or, rather, a variant of it: "justice"):

"For the LORD is a God of justice." --Excerpted from Isaiah 30:18

"For I, the LORD, love justice" --Excerpted from Isaiah 61:8

"The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love." --Psalms 33:5
I know them all. I can give you even more...many more.

So why, in defiance of the Word of God, do you, Harry, claim that God is "unjust"? You can only do so if you are using a definition DIFFERENT from the one the Bible is using.

So specify it: in Harry's world, what does "just" mean?

Stop running, and define your terms. That's basic philosophy.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

oh for goodness sake. all your argument amounts to, IC, is that a) whatever happens is good and just because god is good and just, b) god works in mysterious ways, and c) we ought not worry about trying to figure out why god does anything and just do what the bible tells us.

this is too disingenuous for me bro. i don't believe in gods, but if i did, i couldn't on behalf of the nonsense above bring myself to believe in a god as such.

it would have to be something else man. i keep telling you. something like on the level of the Urantia. I'm sayin if you're gonna go in, go all in.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Christianity

Post by DPMartin »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:04 am
DPMartin wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm
Age wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 8:47 am

The word 'fathered' would refer to the male gendered one of a, particular, species only after that one had created or caused an offspring.


For surely it could also be said and argued; if one’s God is the Creator of all things made then surly what was made has been generated or produced formed and caused by said Creator, hence, Mothered, correct?

Or, if it only works one way here, then we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this', AS WELL. That is; if you are READY and OPEN to DISCUSSING 'this'.


And, WHY, EXACTLY, would it, supposedly, NOT be correct to call the Creator, Mother, or the Mother of all things?

WHY is 'the "Father" a, supposed, recognition of the relationship within and through that just another human being called "jesus christ"?

How, EXACTLY, does the "Father" word work in relationship between, say, "jesus christ" and its Mother?
It was an FYI
And, for your information, One Thing ALONE can NOT create absolutely ANY thing. So, what was "YOUR FYI" could NOT be ACCURATE, that is; in relation to what IS thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'. As I just POINTED OUT and REVEALED.
DPMartin wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm what’s all this are you a feminist or something?
LOL I suggest you ask your questions from a Truly OPEN perspective from now on. That way you can RECEIVE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.
DPMartin wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm language is in place to represent concepts of which the human race determines its use.


And My words and thus language SHOWS and REVEALS WHERE, EXACTLY, the words and thus language, which 'you', human beings, are determined to use, is False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.
DPMartin wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm So, argue with all of the human race that uses male for the Creator and Judge. And male for Son of God.
LOL What is there to 'argue' about here, EXACTLY?

I am just QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING 'you', adult human beings, here over WHY 'you' call and label 'God' a 'male gendered thing'?

The reason you gave here is the best one I have SEEN so far. But it still does NOT work.

If, and WHEN, 'you', human beings, come to LEARN and UNDERSTAND who and what the word 'God' refers to, EXACTLY, then, and ONLY THEN, 'you' will ALSO SEE HOW and WHY the 'male gendered' terms WERE used, as well as UNDERSTAND HOW and WHY those terms WERE False, and so Wrong AND Incorrect.
for some reason i just don't feel informed here.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

That's EXACTLY how I FEEL, DPM.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

promethean75 wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:26 pm oh for goodness sake. all your argument amounts to, IC, is that a) whatever happens is good and just because god is good and just, b) god works in mysterious ways, and c) we ought not worry about trying to figure out why god does anything and just do what the bible tells us.

this is too disingenuous for me bro. i don't believe in gods, but if i did, i couldn't on behalf of the nonsense above bring myself to believe in a god as such.

it would have to be something else man. i keep telling you. something like on the level of the Urantia. I'm sayin if you're gonna go in, go all in.
On what basis can a person argue against the concept that justice defined as "might makes right"? It is the rage of the day for example, those who argue against justice will be cancelled by the stronger. Are they wrong to pursue justice? How can they be when the LORD loves justice?
Thrasymachus who represented the new and critical view, propounded the radical theory of justice. He defines justice as "the interest of the stronger". In the other words, might is right. For while, every man acts for himself and tries to get what he can, the strongest is sure to get what he wants and as in a state the Government is the strongest, it will try to get and it will get, whatever it wants for itself. Thus, for Thrasymachus justice means personal interest of the ruling group in any state or we can further define it as "another's good". Laws are made by the ruling party in its own interest. Those who violate such laws are punished because violation of such laws is treated as violation of justice.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

Nick I'm tryin but u gotta aks me those questions again becuz you have an incomplete sentence going there at first and it only gets more confusing for me as I read.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

btw IC, I can't accept the 'foreknowledge and cause are not the same' proposition you presented earlier becuz i don't believe such a question is produced on account of there being no freewill with which to make a choice god had foreknowledge of but didn't cause, etc.

you seewum sayin?

you have an argument that might be relevant in a battle with some other religion (say an occasionalist islamic one), but in my system (where there's no freewill), no such point can be relevant as it cannot be formally recognized as a real philosophical problem.

thank you, and good day to you, sir. 
Post Reply