Christianity

[Dubious]

Jews don't believe in Jesus; all who don't believe in Jesus are condemned...so would not the Jews also have to be condemned??

Some Jews do believe in Jesus. They are called "Messianic Jews." And more yet will. See Zechariah 12:10.

But that will not have anything to do with you, will it?

Yes, but almost all Jews throughout history have not believed in Jesus. According to you - or as the bible informs you - all who do not so believe as per his command are doomed on Judgement Day...clearly a major contradiction, being chosen by the OT god and condemned for not believing in his son in the NT.

Two loose ends impossible to join without creating a paradox. No wonder you keep dancing around the question!

[promethean75]

So you'd just watch all the unbelieving Jews get marched straight to eternal damnation to be eternally damned, and then ride on up to heaven and sit right beside that sonofabitch as if none of that just happened, Manny?

This god is a monster and I beseech you!

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but almost all Jews throughout history have not believed in Jesus. According to you - or as the bible informs you - all who do not so believe as per his command are doomed on Judgement Day...clearly a major contradiction, being chosen by the OT god and condemned for not believing in his son in the NT.

I could go into a detailed theological discussion of the difference between the theology of national salvation and the theology of personal salvation; and I have no doubt I could explain both to the satisfaction of a reasonable person. But I don't have to: it's been done, and done many times.

Here you are: https://www.chosenpeople.com/salvation- ... y-judaism/

[Age]

"God must rescue man. Jesus Christ is the Savior."

"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

It's that plain.

All I can tell you is this: take your choice, P. And then live or die with those consequences.

You do have that right: and even God Himself will not take that right from you. But you will make a choice.

LOL

Every person has eternal life, AFTER coming into Existence. But NO person is Aware of life, after the body stops breathing and pumping blood. NO matter how much BELIEF they had in ' children/the "son" '. Absolutely NO one gets special privileges. And, the quicker you "christians" learn this Fact, then the better things will become for EVERY one.

Also, the ones who do NOT listen and follow ' children/the "son" ' do NOT SEE 'Life, Itself, for what It Truly IS. As PROVED ALREADY True by 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

Oh btw here's some nuggets dropped by the master that ch'all can chew on during your breaks from the edifying discourse in this thread. But remember, fritz is not tryna hurt you... he's tryna help you... tryna help you see a side of you that lies concealed behind itself. The goal is to make you uncomfortable, not to destroy you. That's the business of a priest.

https://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche. ... hrist.html

Nietzsche? Really?

A toothless tiger. Lots of roar, but no bite. He just assumed his own conclusions, never sought to prove them, and then went on lengthy, polemic rants.

This sounds EXACTLY like the one known here as "immanuel can".

His critiques of Christianity were certainly stylish and full-mouthed, but badly misaimed of course...when it came to actual theology, he really didn't know his subject at all.

But this I'll give him: he did expose what WOULD BE true, IF there were no God. So he ought to give any Atheist a serious reality check.

[Dubious]

Yes, but almost all Jews throughout history have not believed in Jesus. According to you - or as the bible informs you - all who do not so believe as per his command are doomed on Judgement Day...clearly a major contradiction, being chosen by the OT god and condemned for not believing in his son in the NT.

I could go into a detailed theological discussion of the difference between the theology of national salvation and the theology of personal salvation; and I have no doubt I could explain both to the satisfaction of a reasonable person. But I don't have to: it's been done, and done many times.

Here you are: https://www.chosenpeople.com/salvation- ... y-judaism/

The article seeks to justify Messianic Judaism vis-a-vis its traditional version with which it has little in common. It's main premise, making it more Christian than Jewish is the same one you unquestioningly accept...namely salvation can only be achieved in the acceptance of Jesus as savior. This, of course, does not belong to mainstream Jewish theology being opposite to it.

https://www.chosenpeople.com/david-and-julia-sedaca/

In consequence, it doesn't negate the question....what happens to all those traditionalist Jews who strictly believe in The Torah? It's easy to see why you refer to Messianic Judaism instead of it's actual historical significance as expressed in the OT.

You can't go into a detailed rational discussion because if you did it would all end in paradox...which is the reason you were never once able to give an explanation....aside from the fact one can never rationalize an absurdity into its opposite no matter how many times you try.

[Dubious]

Oh btw here's some nuggets dropped by the master that ch'all can chew on during your breaks from the edifying discourse in this thread. But remember, fritz is not tryna hurt you... he's tryna help you... tryna help you see a side of you that lies concealed behind itself. The goal is to make you uncomfortable, not to destroy you. That's the business of a priest.

https://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche. ... hrist.html

Nietzsche? Really?

A toothless tiger. Lots of roar, but no bite. He just assumed his own conclusions, never sought to prove them, and then went on lengthy, polemic rants. His critiques of Christianity were certainly stylish and full-mouthed, but badly misaimed of course...when it came to actual theology, he really didn't know his subject at all.

In your once again pathetic attempt to describe Nietzsche you couldn't have described yourself better in every single sentence. It must really grate that what the bible lost on credibility, Nietzsche gained in his. He never commanded "believe in me". He affirmed instead think for yourself and gave plenty to think about...except for theists whose brains have long been buried in the bible with no exit strategy.

Jesus was nothing more than a cultist preacher not unlike John the Baptist who never once proved themselves useful. Nietzsche is immeasurably more valuable than some ancient back alley preacher who got himself crucified for the most stupid of reasons.

[attofishpi]

Jesus was nothing more than a cultist preacher not unlike John the Baptist who never once proved themselves useful. Nietzsche is immeasurably more valuable than some ancient back alley preacher who got himself crucified for the most stupid of reasons.

Nietzsche?

What did Nietzsche do in the name of giving hope and promoting love to people?

[Age]

The religious man who is unable to not believe in all honesty in the existence of god,

It doesn't actually work that way, P.

The poet Robert Browning put it better: what we are faced with, in the choice between belief and disbelief, is that the world has enough possibility of being interpreted both ways to allow us both options. And everybody has both. Only a person who closes his or her eyes to the data completely has no possibility of faith or doubt. And either religionists or Atheists can be guilty of that.

...the honest atheist.

I hope one day to meet such. I never have.

You have NEVER met a "honest theist" and you NEVER will also.

A "honest theist", by definition, is an IMPOSSIBILITY, and is just an oxymoron.

For Atheism is not something one can hold on data. It has one primary supposition: that there is, and can be, no such thing as a God or gods. If it violates that, then it's not Atheism, by definition.

But that supposition, so fundamental to Atheism -- what is it premised upon? What data would be sufficient to warrant it? Clearly, there's no such thing.

For "theism" is not something one can hold on data. It has one primary supposition: that there is, and can be, no such thing as God not existing. If it violates that, then it is not "theism", by definition.

But that supposition, so fundamental to "theism" -- what is it premised upon, EXACTLY? What data would be sufficient to warrant it? Clearly, there is no such thing, well from the 'interpretation' of 'God' to "immanuel can" anyway.

For to know, of a certainty, that there is and can be no such thing as a God or gods, one would literally have to have all knowledge. One would have to go everywhere in the universe...to make sure that the god of the Deists did not exist. One would have to time-travel, just to make sure that if a god didn't exist now, none ever had, and that none ever would in the future.

And when one had done all that, then one could finally say, "I know for certain that no God or gods exist. And I know it on evidence and investigation, not mere wishing."

The irony is, though, that no sooner than one had achieved the necessary expansiveness of knowledge, one would be wrong -- there WOULD be a God, and it would be YOU. For to be possessed of all knowledge and not be time-bound are part of the definition of Supreme Being.

So can Atheism be held rationally? No. It can be held as a wish, a hope, a hypothesis, a belief...but never on sufficient evidence. So where is the "honest" Atheist? Because by declaring himself an Atheist, he's being dishonest about what he knows or can know.

And whereabouts, exactly, is the Honesty when a human being claims God is a male gendered "he", and that that "he" created EVERY thing, which obviously would include "himself"?

If I find no reason to believe in a god,

Then you can admit that you have no knowledge of the matter. And that's fair, if true. One can be agnostic and honest.

And what knowledge do you exactly have that "your" God even exists?

Your Honesty here would be much appreciated. If we get that or not we will have to wait and see though.

However, it's not true in your case. You've been offered some knowledge about God, if only in the last several messages from me. Apparently, you just don't like that. But you don't answer to me. In fact, one day, you'll explain yourself to God, as will we all.

And what do you think 'you' will have to answer TO, EXACTLY?

What do you think 'you' will be questioned about, EXACTLY? And,

How do you think 'you' will be questioned, EXACTLY?

For it is written:
As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee will bow,
And every tongue will give praise to God.
So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. (Romans 14:11-12)

Prepare your answer, would be my advice.

LOL

What was the 'question' AGAIN?

Also, if to God EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will give praise to God, then God MUST be One VERY STUPID "male". BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY NOT EVERY knee is bowing to God and NOT EVER tongue is praising God, in the days when this was being written, anyway.

My advice is LEARN how to LISTEN, properly AND correctly, to what is ACTUALLY BEING SAID and WRITTEN, and then you will OBTAIN thee ACTUAL Truth, and NOT continue on with your MOST DISTORT and Wrong 'interpretations'.

[Age]

Dude. You kan't downplay Nietzsche like that, because if you do, it means he got to ya, and that's what you don't want everybody to know. Like you would never say Mike Tyson can't box. You'd just make some critical comments about his style and form or something.

Kay here's whatcha gotta consider. Being that there is no definitive proof for the existence of god, reasons for believing in god can't be grounded in epistemology or science, but only psychology.

But who claims there is NO definitive proof for the existence of 'god'?

And, is 'god' different to 'God', and if yes, then how, EXACTLY?

Also, there is definitive proof for the existence of God, by the way. But, then, ONCE AGAIN as I REMIND 'you', human beings, this all depends on just how one defines the word 'God' and/or what that word refers to, EXACTLY.

As such, belief in god can very often, and most usually does, develop out of and from internal emotional conflicts and attitudes adopted about a life that is found to be rather disagreeable. See there can be nowhere else from whence it comes.... religious beliefs, I mean, and something has to cause it. That cause is most generally a great degree of stress, anxiety, dread, despair and hopelessness. At the other end of the spectrum is the cause of megalomania, which is a defense mechanism manufactured to rationalize away those former mentioned causes. In either case, the religious person is something of a latent basket case if he's intelligent, or he's incapable of thinking critically and remains with an innocent, absentminded childlike mentality throughout his life.

This last sentence could be said for BOTH the "atheist" and the "theist", EQUALLY.

If one BELIEVES or DISBELIEVES God exists, without ANY ACTUAL PROOF AT ALL, then they are, to me anyway, EQUALLY STUPID.

And, if they do have actual proof and they STILL BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE, then they are being even MORE STUPID.

In any event what fritz is tryna do is examine the kinds of conflicts that lead to the creation of religions. He's a psychologist here, that's all. And he is so because there is nothing else to be when facing the question of religion. As a phenomena, it is precisely that. One has to do some detective work to root out the causes of such delirium, and fritz is one of the best gumshoes you'll ever find.

And aside from a few tried and refuted ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of god, 'theology' amounts to nothing more than drawn out, substanceless discussions about historical events, stories and reports related to whatever religion. It's philology. I mean that's all it can amount to. Talking endlessly about some passage from some text that some guy wrote thousands of years ago. You could be quoting a reader's digest and experience the same levity.

[Age]

Holy moly I can't believe you amateurs are really playing the burden of proof card on the atheist. Fuck man can I get a little more credit than that? I've been doing this for decades. This isn't my first day at Sunday school.

Then one would think that you would KNOW BETTER.

Ya know how Chomsky once answered when axed 'do you believe in god'? He answered 'i'm sorry, I don't understand the question'. There can't possibly be a better answer than this, because it avoids all the traps lying in wait if he were to acknowledge that there is any sense to the word 'god', in the first place. And I shalt do the same. I have no idea what the HECK you wing nuts are talking about.

And, we ALSO NEITHER have ANY idea AT ALL what you are talking about when you talk about 'god'.

Also, if you want to BELIEVE or CLAIM that 'god' does NOT exist, then are you setting some sort of trap in that there is some sort of sense to the word 'god'?

Also, if you were, previously, asked, "Do you disbelieve in god?', then would you have, previously, answered something like; "I don't understand that question"? Or, is it somehow different the other way around?

[Age]

Dude. You kan't downplay Nietzsche like that,

I'm giving him his due, for what it's worth. He's a good expositor of Atheism. About Christianity, what he knows could fit in a thimble.

What you know about "christinity" "immanuel can" would NOT be ANY more AT ALL.

In fact you could NOT even define the word "christianity" in a logical sense that could be agreed with by EVERY one. Which just SHOWS and PROVES how little you really KNOW about "christianity".

I'm always amused when somebody who pays no attention when the Word of God is quoted chooses to quote Nietzsche or Dawkins as if they were quoting some unimpeachable sacred text.

Are you even slightly AWARE "immanuel can" that just because some words written are so-called "the Word of God" does NOT mean that they are ACTUALLY God's OWN words?

Or, are you REALLY that GULLIBLE that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that because a human being, who you admire or listen to, TELLS you these are "the Words of God", then that MEANS IRREFUTABLY that these are, LITERALLY, 'the Words of God'?

Your Honesty, if you can EVER bring It out would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED here, ONCE AGAIN.

It's more than a little ironic: they won't listen to God speak, but they fall back in reverence at the pronouncements of a syphillitic madman. Lovely.

And "others" find it far more ironic that you call some words, which were OBVIOUSLY written down by human beings, "the Word of God", and especially considering that you ONLY know that they are "the Words of God" because it was, AGAIN, human being who SAID and WROTE that they are "the Word of God".

You, literally, have ALL THE TIME fall back, in reverence, of just what HUMAN BEINGS have been TELLING you to BELIEVE is true.

Being that there is no definitive proof for the existence of god,

But nobody said there is. What we said is that there is enough evidence to give one reasons to believe, but enough uncertainty to warrant doubt.

LOL So, all of this time you have been BELIEVING some thing is true, but which you now ADMIT that you have absolutely NO PROOF AT ALL for.

Also, the sun appearing to go around the earth was ALSO "enough evidence" for people to BELIEVE that the earth was at the very center of the Universe. So, "evidence" is REALLY NEVER ever 'enough' to form BELIEFS.

Besides the fact that just holding BELIEFS is a completely UNNECESSARY thing to do in Life ANYWAY.

And, considering just how ASTRAY 'you', human beings, have been and ARE BEING led ASTRAY by BELIEFS, we have to wonder WHY 'you', adult human beings, continue to BELIEVE (in) 'things', in the days when this is being written?

Will ANY of 'you' TELL us WHY 'you' continue on with this completely archaic, to us, behavior?

However, it's far from an equal equation: and anybody who considers the evidence dispassionately will be drawn to the God hypothesis.

Hey, even Dawkins says that's true.

It's more than a little ironic, when one writes;
"I'm always amused when somebody who pays no attention when the Word of God is quoted chooses to quote Dawkins as if they were quoting some unimpeachable sacred text." and then they go on to say;

"Hey, even Dawkins says that's true", in regards to what they say and claim.

And, some say, AGAIN, this is FAR MORE than just a little ironic. The HYPOCRISY and CONTRADICTION is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS here.

reasons for believing in god can't be grounded in epistemology or science, but only psychology.

Heh. If you knew anything at all about the debates surrounding Theism, you'd never say anything so transparently wrong.

Regarding the psychology, Freud said it much better than you're managing to. But even Freud had this serious problem: that the strategy of psychologizing faith works just as well for Atheism. One could argue that just as belief in God could be a desire for a father figure, or a way of escaping stress, or whatever, one could argue that the cause of Atheism is a childish desire NOT to answer to a father, or a way of escaping the stress of moral duty.

ALL of 'you' adults who BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE (in) God are just as INSANE as EACH OTHER.

A sword that cuts both ways is not a good tool for an Atheist to employ. He's likely to hack his head off.

You are BOTH, literally, as "bad" and as Wrong as EACH OTHER.

And aside from a few tried and refuted ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of god,

Wait...wait..

You said earlier, that such things don't even exist. Now you're admitting they do? I thought you were committed to the old "psychologizing" ruse.

But here is a stock of those alleged "arguments that don't exist." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/boo ... 1444308334 You'll find it scholarly, well-documented and fair.

But NONE of those so-called arguments are sound AND valid, and therefore not really worth repeating anyway.

[Age]

"God must rescue man. Jesus Christ is the Savior."

"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

It's that plain.

No it's not. It's stupid, shit advertising to scare people, the most gullible, into believing. What it's exactly equivalent to is buy me or be damned!

Or, as another here writes, bi-ble, buy bull (shit) or be damned.

Those are the terms. Propaganda has never been just a recent event in trying to sell you something. The only difference is, the bible does it with threats.

With threats or with the DECEPTION "these are the Word of God".

Oh, and by the way, there are thee ACTUAL WORDS of God, in there, but thee WORDS of God can be READ - SEEN and HEARD - just about Everywhere. One just needs to learn how to DECIPHER between what are just the words of human beings only, FROM thee ACTUAL True WORDS of God.

[Age]

Do you see natural evolution of humankind as undermining the past?

Perhaps if you talk about that *natural evolution* in a good deal more depth and with real precision I will better understand what you refer to.

You refer quite often, in very general and open-ended ways, to these ideals and abstractions. But you don't indicate what, concretely, you are talking about.

I really do not know what you are on about, or what you are *up to* (my term for what you are fundamentally involved in) but as I say, and I mean no disrespect, I see you like so many involved in undermining currents.

I SEE a LOT of DISRESPECT here.

You NEVER ask for CLARITY.

You just EXPECT the "other" to PROVIDE MORE CLARITY, for you, as though 'you' are the ONLY one this poster has to find the Right WORDS for.

EVERY one of us is having trouble finding the Right WORDS to be UNDERSTOOD by the readers. And, this is because EACH and EVERY reader has their OWN view and perspective of 'things'.

Only when a reader EXPLAINS what they do NOT understand FULLY, and/or asks VERY SPECIFIC CLARIFYING questions, then HOW could ANY one PROVIDE what you WANT, when all you say are things like:
"Perhaps if you talk about that *natural evolution* in a good deal more depth and with real precision I will better understand what you refer to".

Have you SEEN just how LONG and just how much DEPTH, with supposed "real" precision", scientific literature goes into things like 'natural evolution'?

And, have you NOTICED that these "good deal more depth" and "with real precision" writings are ACTUALLY REALLY or FULLY UNDERSTOOD by 'you', adult human beings?

But, YET you want a poster in a sill little forum as this to write ALL of 'that', to you, in just a REPLY, so that just MAYBE you will "better understand" what they are referring to.

And, have you EVER considered writing in a "good deal more depth and with REAL precision", from now on?

What you write and say is OBVIOUSLY NOT being 'well understood' AT ALL. Especially considering just how much ALLUDING TO you do and just how NEBULOUS your writings REALLY ARE.

[Age]

I was reading about your experience this morning, then, Alexis. For I was reading Matthew 3:19. Jesus says that what He would teach, if not heard with "ears to hear" (v. 9, i.e. with a will to receive and understand) would not be understood, and ultimately would be "snatched away," and not become comprehensible anymore at all. It seems that has happened for this. But it doesn't have to -- it all depends on how one is willing to hear.

I found one of the BEST ways 'to hear' was with the eyes, and, 'to see' with the ears. Which, WILL become UNDERSTOOD.

The reason 'you', adult human beings, hitherto when this was being written had LOST the ability to 'hear with the ears' is EXACTLY what this 'message' is SAYING here and which can be CLEARLY SEEN, with the eyes.

The things you say, the things you feel are definitely and absolutely true, those things I respect because I respect you. But in no sense do I believe that I am on the outside of what you try to bring to people's attention. I see these *meanings* as larger, and perhaps deeper, that what is implied on the surface.

And I gather that you recognize that if I am *up to something* it is clarifying what I understand and believe.

So, WILL you CLARIFY what you MEAN here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, you CLAIM you can SEE these 'meanings' as larger, and PERHAPS deeper, than what is implied on the surface. So, what is the LARGER MEANING, which you can SEE?

And, WHY ONLY 'perhaps' 'deeper meaning'? (does this mean that you are STILL NOT SURE?)

So, go right ahead and PROVE to us that you are NOT LYING here, and SHOW us that you ARE ACTUALLY CLARIFYING what you BELIEVE is true, and, supposedly, UNDERSTAND ALSO.

So far, your nebulous and HAZY writings have NOT CLEARED up ANY thing AT ALL. Oh, except that you SEEM to NOT KNOW very much at all about what you ALLUDE to CLAIM you know.

_____________________________________________

I thought of this poem mostly for the last 8 lines in relation to an obstinacy that makes hearing impossible for all that one has ears. It is a difficult poem but worth attempting.

I mean nothing particularly by posting it and it is not additional commentary on any perspective. It is simply fun and interesting to interject a poem from time to time...

Directive Robert Frost

Back out of all this now too much for us,
Back in a time made simple by the loss
Of detail, burned, dissolved, and broken off
Like graveyard marble sculpture in the weather,
There is a house that is no more a house
Upon a farm that is no more a farm
And in a town that is no more a town.
The road there, if you'll let a guide direct you
Who only has at heart your getting lost,
May seem as if it should have been a quarry—
Great monolithic knees the former town
Long since gave up pretense of keeping covered.
And there's a story in a book about it:
Besides the wear of iron wagon wheels
The ledges show lines ruled southeast northwest,
The chisel work of an enormous Glacier
That braced his feet against the Arctic Pole.
You must not mind a certain coolness from him
Still said to haunt this side of Panther Mountain.
Nor need you mind the serial ordeal
Of being watched from forty cellar holes
As if by eye pairs out of forty firkins.
As for the woods' excitement over you
That sends light rustle rushes to their leaves,
Charge that to upstart inexperience.
Where were they all not twenty years ago?
They think too much of having shaded out
A few old pecker-fretted apple trees.
Make yourself up a cheering song of how
Someone's road home from work this once was,
Who may be just ahead of you on foot
Or creaking with a buggy load of grain.
The height of the adventure is the height
Of country where two village cultures faded
Into each other. Both of them are lost.
And if you're lost enough to find yourself
By now, pull in your ladder road behind you
And put a sign up CLOSED to all but me.
Then make yourself at home. The only field
Now left's no bigger than a harness gall.
First there's the children's house of make believe,
Some shattered dishes underneath a pine,
The playthings in the playhouse of the children.
Weep for what little things could make them glad.
Then for the house that is no more a house,
But only a belilaced cellar hole,
Now slowly closing like a dent in dough.
This was no playhouse but a house in earnest.
Your destination and your destiny's
A brook that was the water of the house,
Cold as a spring as yet so near its source,
Too lofty and original to rage.
(We know the valley streams that when aroused
Will leave their tatters hung on barb and thorn.)
I have kept hidden in the instep arch
Of an old cedar at the waterside
A broken drinking goblet like the Grail
Under a spell so the wrong ones can't find it,
So can't get saved, as Saint Mark says they mustn't.
(I stole the goblet from the children's playhouse.)
Here are your waters and your watering place.
Drink and be whole again beyond confusion.

WHY would you CLAIM that this is a "DIFFICULT POEM"?

What is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'difficult' here?

What, EXACTLY, WAS 'difficult', for YOU, in this poem?

From what I can CLEARLY SEE here is that CONTRARY to your OWN BELIEF you are NOT "clarifying what you understand and believe" AT ALL. But, just ONCE MORE adding MORE DECEPTION as a DISTRACTION from the Fact that you REALLY have NO IDEA AT ALL here.