Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 3:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 3:17 pm
Dubious wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:48 am You are far too modest! Why just ask for one?
You just copied somebody else's screed. Likewise, I'll simply refer you to the many apologetics websites online that will answer all of these. You won't have trouble finding them.

When you're done reading, get back to me.
Thus you masterfully avoid every single aspect of the critical, and philosophical, and topical, conversation.
:D Well, it really wasn't a "conversation." It was his cut-and-paste. And turnabout is fair play.

However, you are not that way; so if you want a starting point, you can go here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ The resources stored there will keep you busy for years.

But guys like Dube aren't interested. They love the objections, not the defeat of the objections. They like cavilling, not truth. So I'd encourage you to waste no more time attempting to respond to his complaints: for him, complaining is the whole point.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

ME:
iambiguous wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:58 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:44 pm
What Iambiguous is revealing is, neither more nor less, exactly where he is situated when, as it happened, the reigning moral imperative imploded. And he goes on to assert that *this is in fact the true human situation and condition*. In other words he can find no alternative. So his effort is to *reveal and explain how things really are*. Thus the axial declaration that any 'moral position' and all ethics depend on dasein: a not-at-all-easy-to-grasp-set-of-complex-predicates-about-human-being-and-existence. It is not surprising that, in the course of Iambiguous' expositions the term is tossed in but never talked about except as a vague reference.
On the contrary, in the OP of this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 -- I intertwine what dasein means to me philosophically into the very life that I have lived. Existentially. First in the God [Christian] World then in the No God [atheist] world.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:44 pmIs there a way to reduce the term to some sort of simple, declarative definition? Iambiguous' use of it seems to roughly translate to "situational ethics that depend on the person, the moment, and the general situation, where each person, moment and situation is different and demands different decisions".
Right, a declarative definition that allows one to employ it in resolving the moral conflagrations that revolve around issues like abortion. As though defining abortion as a medical procedure and defining words that will allow us to declare that it is either moral or immoral is, what, interchangeable?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:44 pmCuriously, he then plunges into a moral and ethical conflict fought over in our own day. He is unable to solve the issue. He sees *both sides* which nullify each other (according to his presentation). If there is no god there is no soul. If there is no soul then there cannot be conceived any special stance of protection offered by those born and alive to that soul involved in being a fetus which will, successively, develop into a full-fledged human being and take a place among the community of the living. Thus that embryo cannot be understood to have any particular or innate value or *right*.
My point, however, is that sans an omniscient and omnipotent God, mere mortals don't seem to have access to a secular equivalent. A No God argument that does resolve the conflict.

Now, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, only that "here and now", if it does, it has not come to my own attention.

As for Immanuel Can, I note to him what I note to all others -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- regarding their own One True Spiritual Path. Close the gap between what you believe "in your head" about objective morality, immortality and salvation and what you are actually able to demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

After all, what else is there in a world where there has not been much that has not been believed in one or another's head?
YOU:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:00 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:58 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:44 pm
What Iambiguous is revealing is, neither more nor less, exactly where he is situated when, as it happened, the reigning moral imperative imploded. And he goes on to assert that *this is in fact the true human situation and condition*. In other words he can find no alternative. So his effort is to *reveal and explain how things really are*. Thus the axial declaration that any 'moral position' and all ethics depend on dasein: a not-at-all-easy-to-grasp-set-of-complex-predicates-about-human-being-and-existence. It is not surprising that, in the course of Iambiguous' expositions the term is tossed in but never talked about except as a vague reference.
On the contrary, in the OP of this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 -- I intertwine what dasein means to me philosophically into the very life that I have lived. Existentially. First in the God [Christian] World then in the No God [atheist] world.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
Yes, I remember reading that. And that is why I recently wrote:
What Iambiguous is revealing is, neither more nor less, exactly where he is situated when, as it happened, the reigning moral imperative imploded. And he goes on to assert that *this is in fact the true human situation and condition*. In other words he can find no alternative. So his effort is to *reveal and explain how things really are*. Thus the axial declaration that any 'moral position' and all ethics depend on dasein: a not-at-all-easy-to-grasp-set-of-complex-predicates-about-human-being-and-existence. It is not surprising that, in the course of Iambiguous' expositions the term is tossed in but never talked about except as a vague reference.
So, if I understand you right you object to my statement about a 'vague reference' but not to the general attempt at a fair description of where you stand?
It's like we are in two different exchanges here.

In my view, what we need to do is take what I construe to be your vague "general description intellectual contraptions" above and bring them down to earth. Given a particular issue like abortion and given a particular set of circumstances. We can assess each other's moral philosophies. Given in turn our respective views on religion in general and Christianity in particular.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:49 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:47 pm Did John Calvin Believe in Free Will?
Most Christians are not Calvinists.
Again and again and again:

Given that 1] objective morality on this side of the grave and 2] immortality and salvation on the other side of it are at stake, what's a mere mortal to do? Believe IC's rendition of the True Christian? Or the Calvinists? Or the Catholics? Or the Protestants? Or the Jews? Or the Muslims?

Or in the Gods of all the other denominations?

Note to others:

Let's ignore IC. His own ridiculous, circular arguments. Let's move beyond mere entertainment and examine this seriously. What is a mere mortal to do here given what is at stake both here and now and there and then?


IC tells us, "that's just what [ultra]Calvinists...think is the case." Okay, so how is it not in turn here "what IC thinks is the case"? Where is his demonstrable proof such that with so much at stake, it really is only what he thinks that counts?

Again, moving beyond just being amused by him here.
Let's face it though, sin takes on a whole new meaning if you were never able not to sin. And if, whether you do or do not, the fate of your eternal soul had already been decided by God...at or around the time of the Big Bang?

Still, it really comes down to how Calvin was actually able to demonstrate this beyond insisting that he was never able to demonstrate it beyond being fated to believe it.

I mean, in all seriously, what could you have told him to get around that?
Then [of course] for the rest of his post, back to what IC insists that all True Christians really believe. And, as luck would have it, it's exactly what he himself believes!

Well, that and quoting the Christian Bible in order to demonstrably prove that Christianity is the word of God.



Just as an aside, if you want to explore yet another snapshot of how denominational religion often does function in reality down here on Earth check out this documentary: https://www.hbo.com/unveiled-surviving- ... o/season-1

Christianity. How over and over and over again, it often becomes mostly about sex and money.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:44 pmLet's ignore IC.
Hilarious. :D

"Let's talk about Christianity, but let's ignore the Christians."


Okay, Biggie: you're on your own.

In truth, you always were.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:01 pmThe resources stored there will keep you busy for years.
You have not ever, not once, brought forth a successful and coherent argument in respect to Christian belief-pillars. I remember, with embarrassment, the ‘original mating pair’ argument to clarify the A&E fable. It would be laughed out of any room. In fact I do not think that you really believe it functions as a reasoned argument.

The only argument you can resort to with some coherency is the ‘intelligent’ or ‘designed universe’ one. But that argument is so broad that it justifies any divine-creator god-concept.

That the created, manifest world arose resplendent with ‘design’ and though that seems true it explains no part of Christian mythology.

So in fact one would not need to spend years mulling over endless confections of grasping arguments. Only a few minutes are needed to see falsely-based arguments sent up by a priori believers.

Thus, you (plural) arrive at faith through other routes unconnected to reason or proof. Then, because of our shared Aristotelian reasoning tendencies that have been instilled in us, you then work like the devil to reverse-engineer Old Myths so they appear reasoned and believable.

Your faith does not depend on reason or logic nor evidence nor proof.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

In other news … what about Croatia? And shouldn’t they have left that 7 foot lesbian in Russia?! She could have become Official Kremlin Lightbulb Changer …
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:01 pmThe resources stored there will keep you busy for years.
You have not ever, not once, brought forth a successful and coherent argument in respect to Christian belief-pillars.
So you say. But check out the website, and your crushing, disabling disappointment with me will be seasoned with some facts. :wink:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:56 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:44 pmLet's ignore IC. His own ridiculous, circular arguments. Let's move beyond mere entertainment and examine this seriously. What is a mere mortal to do here given what is at stake both here and now and there and then?

IC tells us, "that's just what [ultra]Calvinists...think is the case." Okay, so how is it not in turn here "what IC thinks is the case"? Where is his demonstrable proof such that with so much at stake, it really is only what he thinks that counts?

Again, moving beyond just being amused by him here.
Hilarious. :D

"Let's talk about Christianity, but let's ignore the Christians."


Okay, Biggie: you're on your own.

In truth, you always were.
No, what I am suggesting is that we do not take seriously those Christians here who insist that in order to be a True Christian, one must think exactly as they do about Christianity. It's not enough to quote the Christain Bible in order to prove that the Christian God does in fact exist, one must interpret the Bible verses in exactly the same manner as they do.

Unlike those fulminating fanatic atheists like Sculptor, I do have respect for those who, in their own way, given their own life experiences, are able to take intellectually creative existential leaps of faith to the Christian God. I have met any number of Christians such as these over the years. Really, really smart and really, really introspective men and women.

Instead, in my view, it's the fools like IC who actually claim to have gone beyond a leap of faith and insist that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven that warrant my own [admitted] contempt.

We see nothing like him in William Lane Craig's article from Philosophy Now.

Well, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, anyway.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:24 pm It's not enough to quote the Christain Bible in order to prove that the Christian God does in fact exist, one must interpret the Bible verses in exactly the same manner as they do.
I have no idea whom you are talking about. I've never said either thing.

Maybe you find it's just easier for you to caricature people than listen.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:20 pm In other news … what about Croatia?


You ripper!! Just checked the score (will watch later - times are terrible in Oz for this World Cup)

C'mon Netherlands - knock off South America completely! :D

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:20 pmAnd shouldn’t they have left that 7 foot lesbian in Russia?! She could have become Official Kremlin Lightbulb Changer …
Russians still use candles mate.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:39 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:24 pm No, what I am suggesting is that we do not take seriously those Christians here who insist that in order to be a True Christian, one must think exactly as they do about Christianity. It's not enough to quote the Christain Bible in order to prove that the Christian God does in fact exist, one must interpret the Bible verses in exactly the same manner as they do.

Unlike those fulminating fanatic atheists like Sculptor, I do have respect for those who, in their own way, given their own life experiences, are able to take intellectually creative existential leaps of faith to the Christian God. I have met any number of Christians such as these over the years. Really, really smart and really, really introspective men and women.

Instead, in my view, it's the fools like IC who actually claim to have gone beyond a leap of faith and insist that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven that warrant my own [admitted] contempt.

We see nothing like him in William Lane Craig's article from Philosophy Now.

Well, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, anyway.
I have no idea whom you are talking about. I've never said either thing.

Maybe you find it's just easier for you to caricature people than listen.
Take him seriously yourself if you must, sure.

And, indeed, if he ever posts something that you feel might be something I'd be intrigued by, pass it along.

In the interim, he's still just entertainment to me.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

"the ‘original mating pair’ argument to clarify the A&E fable. It would be laughed out of any room."

I remember that. That wuz pretty bad, IC. I didn't... I didn't wanna say anything and upset u so I let it go.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:21 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:01 pmThe resources stored there will keep you busy for years.
You have not ever, not once, brought forth a successful and coherent argument in respect to Christian belief-pillars.
So you say. But check out the website, and your crushing, disabling disappointment with me will be seasoned with some facts. :wink:
I most certainly did. And I’ve already been through the examination of such ‘argumentation’.

You, as a person, are mostly irrelevant, largely irrelevant to me personally. You are enormously frustrating at first but once one has seen that you are a victim of your fanaticism one’s attitude toward you changes. But your ‘type’ interests me a great deal and so putting up sound counter-arguments’ is necessary and useful.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:37 pm ... putting up sound counter-arguments’ is necessary and useful.
...says the guy who can't even define the term "Christian." :lol:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

promethean75 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 8:42 pm "the ‘original mating pair’ argument to clarify the A&E fable. It would be laughed out of any room."
Educate me, Prom.

What's the alternative? Describe human history without making it pass through an original mating pair. How did it happen?

I eagerly await.
Post Reply