Christianity

[Dontaskme]

“You are very naive when it comes to religious philosophical debates. The religiously inclined are more than willing to fight to their death for their beliefs, it a cold blooded bloodsport they ardently believe they have true mastership over.”

…………………………

No I am not being naive, just realistic. Opposites exist. They are a matter of choice. If someone is confrontational and set in their belief it is best as I said not to give them oxygen. Just ignore it and go on to the next topic. Being ignored is the best approach. If anyone has chosen their worldview they have no right to beat others over the head with it.

I'm sorry but that's just silly. It make no sense.

Oppositional debates require two debators, It takes two to tango, there are two sides to every story. There's my story and there's their story.

So all you are saying now, is hey everybody, lets just not bother having a two way conversation here, lets just completely ignore what we don't want to hear from our opponent, and instead lets just go and put the kettle on.

And while it is true that what you do not feed will not grow, then what would even be the point in any philosophical argument? why would one even bother to open their mouth at all, why say anything at all....? Has it never occured to you that IC has the biggest God Gob in the entire universe?

Has it escaped your attention that IC is an imposter. He gets off on his own self cultivated belief that there is this other self that he's named Jesus...just ask him yourself, he's actually admitted that Jesus the human man is the image of God, which is actually saying that God is a man.

Don't go telling people not to go there, it's quite frankly none of your business, it's actually all IC's business, he's the one whose always up for the job, the job that he tells himself his not his job.

Now why don't you make sense of all that nonsense, if you dare.

IC is a con artist, who doesn't realise that You cannot con a con.

.

[owl of Minerva]

Reply to Dontaskme’s last post:

People are free to debate whatever they want or whomever they want I am just pointing out that from a philosophy-as-wisdom-in-action perspective the futility of engaging with people who are so strident in their opinions and attached to their worldview that a debate with them becomes uncivil, gets nowhere and resolves nothing. A philosophical debate on some issue in philosophy that neither debater is overly identified with or attached to is possible and some light may be shed on the topic being debated. Those debates are interesting and informative. People defending their choice of worldview can also be done without becoming polemic or insulting. I have listened to such debates and learned from them.

[Dontaskme]

Reply to Dontaskme’s last post:

People are free to debate whatever they want or whomever they want I am just pointing out that from a philosophy-as-wisdom-in-action perspective the futility of engaging with people who are so strident in their opinions and attached to their worldview that a debate with them becomes uncivil, gets nowhere and resolves nothing. A philosophical debate on some issue in philosophy that neither debater is overly identified with or attached to is possible and some light may be shed on the topic being debated. Those debates are interesting and informative. People defending their choice of worldview can also be done without becoming polemic or insulting. I have listened to such debates and learned from them.

I totally get what you are saying.

But you are missing the point.

The people involved here are deliberately CHOOSING to engage with OTHER people who are so strident in their opinions and attached to their worldview.

It's matters not, that it's a futile pursuit.

They are deliberately choosing to indulge in a futile pursuit, do you know what choosing means?

Do you understand that some people actually deserve to be insulted. It's an insult to one's intelligence to make it known to others, that my truth is holier than yours.

[Janoah]

...not to take on faith that which contradicts scientific evidence...

A past-eternal regress of causes is actually impossible. That's simple maths. And the Earth being the product of causes, it's impossible for it to have been past eternal. It's not even reasonable as a guess, so we can rule that out.

Simultaneous infinity is absurd, but an eternal process in time can be.
And time exists only with the existence of matter, therefore the expression "before the creation of the world" is meaningless.
All this was brought by Rambam.
Therefore, it is more logical to proceed from the premise that the world is co-eternal to the One.
By the way, among the Muslim sages there were those who proceeded from the premise that the world is co-eternal to the One, for example, Avicenna.
Both Avicenna and Maimonides relied on ancient Greek philosophy.

Nothing material taken separately is eternal, and the Earth, naturally, is also not eternal, and you can enter the same river only once. But the forms of matter can change all the time.

Torah holds that it is God who created the material world,

The fact of the matter is that the existence of the One does not need the creation of the world in time.
Rambam explains in this connection how to understand the words of the Torah "In the beginning".

[Janoah]

Oi! Are you a Jew - from that mob that dobbed my mate in to the Romans?

Oh, so your friend is a Jew! And is his dad a Jew?

[Immanuel Can]

Simultaneous infinity is absurd, but an eternal process in time can be.

Actually, if the "process" in mind is causality, it cannot. There is not even a chance it's past eternal. Because the definition of a "cause" is something that comes before another thing, and without which that second thing cannot happen. If the second thing does happen without the first thing happening first, then the first is, by definition, not the "cause" of the second thing.

This means that an infinite regress of causes in the past never starts. There is always another thing that needs to happen before the next thing...eternally, receding backward into the past.

So if cause-and-effect is real (and we all know it is), then the world is, with absolute certainty, NOT past eternal.

And were that not enough, (though it should be) we can see it empirically, from other scientific observations, such as the red shift effect and the laws of entropy, which are among the most certain scientific observations human beings have.

So to posit a past eternal universe, one would have to deny logic, mathematics, causality, cosmology and empirical observation, all at once. That would require a very great leap of faith indeed.

And time exists only with the existence of matter, therefore the expression "before the creation of the world" is meaningless.

This is true, up to the word "meaningless."

And it depends on what you mean by "meaningless." If you mean, "impossible," then that's verifiably wrong. After all, we live in a world of cause-and-effect, observably. Something had to start the causal chain, so something real must have existed.

But if you mean "outside of the set of frames of references human beings presently understand," then I'd have to agree with you. We are time-bound creatures, and have no mental capacity really to understand what state pertained before physical time began. Whatever came before time, we don't understand it.

Therefore, it is more logical to proceed from the premise that the world is co-eternal to the One.

Not if you believe in cause-and-effect. In other words, not if you believe in science. For science weds causes to effects; and absent that, science itself fails to be able to account for anything at all.

Torah holds that it is God who created the material world,

The fact of the matter is that the existence of the One does not need the creation of the world in time.

That is also true.

God, or Hashem, if you prefer, does not HAVE to create anything. God is not dependent on the world, in any sense at all. As He said to Abraham, He's the I AM, the self-existent one. He needs nothing else. He did not need to create.

But Torah explains that He did create.

Rambam explains in this connection how to understand the words of the Torah "In the beginning".

I'm interested. What's his explanation?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let's view John 3:16 as a "contract."
Terms of Contract
God's Contractual Duties, as specified in John 3:16

1. Love the world.
2. Give His unique Son to pay the price for man's sin.
3. Open up a universal way of salvation.
4. Provide eternal life.

Man's Contractual Duties:
Believe God has done it.

Now, that's the contract as spelled out by John 3:16. Does it still actually look "contractual" to you?

But there are further elements and clues offered in John. One is an explanation of the nature of the condemnation. I take condemnation largely as it is stated: one is condemned because of the nature or focus of one’s affection. So, ‘light’ came into the world but it was not expedient to choose it since one’s affections were directed to ‘the world’ (in that Christian sense). The purpose of the crucifixion, therefore, was to attempt to eliminate that crack of light. There is a great deal within these symbol-statements that can be tweaked-out.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

While it seems clear to me that Immanuel Can’s position is one with tremendous stress on the aspect of assent — the simple act of surrender — it does seem to me that a great deal more is implied and also necessary once the door to faithfulness has been opened by the surrender. So, while the debate over covenant and contract is interesting and important, it is inconceivable that there are no ‘contractual responsibilities’ implied and necessary.

The part about ‘doeth truth’ does, it seems to me, imply a whole range of actions and activities. I did understand you when you clarified that initial belief and faith will have to be confirmed by faithfulness (a life-long project). It is a good clarification to have made.

It seems to me that one could, as Immanuel Can seems to do, simplify the initial act of faith (and it seems true that Christianity is predicated on a simple choice), but this does run up against some historical truths about Christian initiation. That the neophyte went through a longish period of spiritual preparation, or perhaps simply of *purification*, before he or she was considered ready to enter the body of Christ (the Cristian believers).

It seems fair to say that if a mere child could, by a simple act of faith, become a Christian, that this would have to be confirmed time and time again by ‘confirmation’ and ‘recommitment’.

[RCSaunders]

Any thinking Atheist would. (But I'm no Atheist, of course.)

He would know that no moral constraints hang over his head, and he could not possibly miss the simple logic of, "I want it, I can get it, and when my life is over there is no more -- so what is there to prevent me from getting it, save my own cowardice?"

This is how a mind works that has been totally corrupted by superstition and is unable to reason or think correctly.

Then let's "correct" it.

Fill in the premise:

Premise 1: No God exists (fundamental to Atheism, obviously)
Premise 2: ____________________________________________________________
Conclusion: Therefore, I am obliged to obey moral precept X. (You pick the moral precept)

If you cannot complete the syllogism, then you're wrong and I'm right, obviously.

Wrong premises, therefore wrong syllogism.

Premise 1: Like all organisms, human beings have a specific nature that requires the manner of behavior necessary for them to live successfully as the kind of (intellectual, rational, volitional) beings they are.

Premise 2: There is no mystical source for that knowledge or supernatural being to tell them how to live or what to do.

Therefore: They must use their ability to learn (intellect) what their nature is and what it requires, and must use that knowledge and their ability to think (reason) to judge which actions will produce what their nature requires and then must consciously choose (volition) to do it.

...human beings' only value to each other is in what they can provide one another as producers.

You put human beings at the level of dairy cows. Nice.

You put them all at the level of wolves and lice preying on others, unless they believe some supernatural dictator tells them what to do. How did you put it?

Any thinking, "individual that does not believe there is dictator telling him how to live and what to do, (which you always insultingly call, 'atheist')," would take full advantage of others, no matter what the cost, because you could not figure out that harming others could never be in your best interest unless someone else told you so.

[That's not an exact quote. It's what you said without the slick obfuscations.]

Those who know they must discover the truth and live by it, using their own mind and reason, and must produce all their life requires by their own effort are the only ones that provide anything of value to themselves or others in this world. You can make jokes equating the producers in this world with cows, but the truth is they are the ones who raise and breed the cattle and provide all the dairy products enjoyed in this world, as well as every other thing of value, all food, clothing, medicine, buildings, machines, and all services that make life possible and enjoyable as well as every book, all music, all humor, every kind and generous act, and every place for every social event where individuals gather to enjoy one another and participate in everything from business to banquets.

What do the superstitious, who have no idea what is right or wrong or what they ought to do unless some mystic dictator tells them what to do and how to live provide? Besides endless empty acts of religious ritual which drain the resources of the producers they despise, all their prayers, ceremonies, and religious programs produce nothing of value to anyone and actually hamper production of any real value to anyone.

The sad part is, once one has chosen to surrender their own mind and reason to the dictates and orders of another, allowing that authority to do their thinking and choosing for them, they no longer have the means to judge whether the master they have chosen is benign or malignant--but a master is always malignant and those who serve them are always slaves.

[Immanuel Can]

This is how a mind works that has been totally corrupted by superstition and is unable to reason or think correctly.

Then let's "correct" it.

Fill in the premise:

Premise 1: No God exists (fundamental to Atheism, obviously)
Premise 2: ____________________________________________________________
Conclusion: Therefore, I am obliged to obey moral precept X. (You pick the moral precept)

If you cannot complete the syllogism, then you're wrong and I'm right, obviously.

Wrong premises, therefore wrong syllogism.

The first premise is unavoidable. It's the definition of "Atheism." The conclusion is unavoidable, because you have to justify a moral value of your choice. So there's really no other legitimate option for either. It's only the middle premise you can work with, if you can.

Premise 1: Like all organisms, human beings have a specific nature that requires the manner of behavior necessary for them to live successfully as the kind of (intellectual, rational, volitional) beings they are.

Premise 2: There is no mystical source for that knowledge or supernatural being to tell them how to live or what to do.

Therefore: They must use their ability to learn (intellect) what their nature is and what it requires, and must use that knowledge and their ability to think (reason) to judge which actions will produce what their nature requires and then must consciously choose (volition) to do it.

That's an invalid syllogism, meaning it's incorrectly formed. Are you unfamiliar with the rules of logic?

You have to have what's called a "middle term" to tie the first premise to the conclusion. Otherwise, the conclusion is unwarrranted by the premises.

[attofishpi]

Oi! Are you a Jew - from that mob that dobbed my mate in to the Romans?

Oh, so your friend is a Jew! And is his dad a Jew?

No my friend was a Jew, got crucified and Judaism was replaced with Christianity. Note how the predominantly Christian nations (that formed Israel for the Jews to live) now protect Israel. So your messiah (my mate) did as promised - Jews are just a tad short sighted.

[owl of Minerva]

Reply to Dontaskme:

“It's matters not, that it's a futile pursuit.

They are deliberately choosing to indulge in a futile pursuit, do you know what choosing means?

Do you understand that some people actually deserve to be insulted. It's an insult to one's intelligence to make it known to others, that my truth is holier than yours.”

…………………………………………………….

People are definitely free to choose. I get that. I choose according to my perspective which is to offer only constructive criticism, not insults. We can go low or we can go high as Michelle Obama put it. I choose to go high. If I feel someone deserves to be insulted that says as much about me as it does about them. I suppose whether Christian or not I am nevertheless following Christian philosophy.

I noticed since my post the discourse has become more civil and inviting for others to engage in. And that is a good thing.

[owl of Minerva]

Reply to Immanuel Can:

“ Torah explains that He did create.
Rambam explains in this connection how to understand the words of the Torah "In the beginning".
I'm interested. What's his explanation?”

……………………………………………………………

IC you are not asking this question of me but I will take a shot at a response:

“In the beginning” in the Eternal Now before linear time there was the command “Let there be Light” from which sprung Time, Space, and the Atom. It is interesting that there is a theory in physics, not yet reaching a consensus, that Light is the source of all information. Of course that is just a theory and a lot of research would have to be done to confirm whether it is true or not.

[Immanuel Can]

Reply to Immanuel Can:

“ Torah explains that He did create.
Rambam explains in this connection how to understand the words of the Torah "In the beginning".
I'm interested. What's his explanation?”

……………………………………………………………

IC you are not asking this question of me but I will take a shot at a response:

“In the beginning” in the Eternal Now before linear time there was the command “Let there be Light” from which sprung Time, Space, and the Atom. It is interesting that there is a theory in physics, not yet reaching a consensus, that Light is the source of all information. Of course that is just a theory and a lot of research would have to be done to confirm whether it is true or not.

Interesting. I think there's some truth in there, but it's not contradictory to Genesis.

I'll wait to hear what Janoah says, and see if you are in agreement.

If you are, I'll respond to you together, if I may. That seems efficient.

[Dontaskme]

If I feel someone deserves to be insulted that says as much about me as it does about them.

That's right, everything you say to another is all about what you know according to your personal experience, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say it. There is absolutely nothing you can know outside of your own personal experiences.

Everyone is a carbon copy of this exact same knowing. What we say to others we say to ourself. What we say to ourself we project to others.

That's just the way it is, and that's all it is, was, and ever will be.

[Dontaskme]

I noticed since my post the discourse has become more civil and inviting for others to engage in. And that is a good thing.

You deserve a huge pat on the back for restoring calm and tranquility and bringing reform to the discussion.

Allow me to be the first one to congratulate you.

Toxic positivity is a curse on humanity, it keeps us slaves to the invisible father christmas who dwells in empty space reported to be inside your head..Which is weird, in the sense that something so infinitely large such as god could possibly fit inside a human skull.