Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dubious
Posts: 3133
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:30 am
Dubious wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:07 am
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope...aaaaaand...nope. :D

I'm surprised, Dube...you don't seem to have a single thing in your quiver. Certainly, just mentioning the names of things does not turn them into "criteria." And you did promise that "by any criteria" you could make your case.
...by criteria is meant the results...
A criterion is the standard by which a thing is to be judged. It is not, itself a conclusion.
That is correct, it is not in itself a conclusion. This is what I wrote, including the last part you found convenient not to mention!
by criteria are meant the results, the output of the disciplines mentioned and many more not mentioned...as compared to - in this case - the written word of the bible.
I never said it was a conclusion. I said it was a “result as compared to". A result is not a conclusion but the output of inquiry. Conclusions are formed subsequently by humans who examine and compare the data; in short, as criteria to determine validity or probability as, for example, comparing the bible to real in the ground archaeological data or as subject to historical analysis in respect of which the bible remains dubious in all respects...and that’s being polite!

Also, I never said “by any criteria” which you accused me of saying. When I asked you where I said it, there is no response. I wonder why that could be!

Your mind is tuned to only one channel and that’s the bible; all others which normally influx the brain are offline. You admitted that yourself, though somewhat indirectly...
Just the Bible. Exclusively. I used no other sources.
To maintain a position, especially an aberrant one, as inviolable is super-simple. Don’t dilute it with anything else, least of all anything conforming to fact or a more credible representation of reality. Its main methodology...always deny, never defend, that way you're never forced to deny the indefensible.
Dubious
Posts: 3133
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:22 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:13 am And you can build an entire philosophy on that premise, all of it perfectly coherent and logically valid. You might even persuade yourself that it is true, with or without asterisks. If that happens, you might start believing that you are right. The reality is that you don't know, but the more you think you know, the more detached from reality you become.
When one examines what you say here you are, I think, restating what Dubious (or is it DontAskMe?) says in a nutshell: that we invent stories about this place or reality in which we find ourselves; that all stories are unreal; and the only *thing* that we have recourse to are the hard and solid facts that are described in material science, if indeed we even have that. I think this is a clear encapsulation of where we have come to -- in our cultural processes and in our epistemological evolution.
One reason I haven't responded to you is because doing so is not unlike responding to IC, your main interlocutor who has long been infamous for his incessant distortions and lies. What you state here, I have nothing to do with, nor would I be in agreement...which is all I have to say to you.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15275
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:40 am I never said it was a conclusion. I said it was a “result as compared to".
A "criterion" is not a "result" at all. :roll:

It's a standard by which one hopes to form and justify a "result" or "conclusion."

I continue to talk to Atheists in the hope of hearing something new...some challenging, novel, interesting, heretofore unthought-of allegation, something I haven't heard before and dispatched a dozen times. But I must report that your conversation of the moment is exceedingly dull, routine and unchallenging. You've raised no old Atheist saw that is not abundantly dealt with on myriad apologetics websites, to which you could easily have referred before now, and thus, none of this cavilling requires I lift a finger. Not a single interesting, innovative or insightful idea has come out of you so far, in regards to this topic.

So I'll give you one more shot, in the vain hope you're capable of better; then I'll just start not paying attention to you again. Life's too short to waste on a string of cliches.

Go ahead.
Dontaskme
Posts: 12762
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:55 am I continue to talk to Atheists in the hope of hearing something new...some challenging, novel, interesting, heretofore unthought-of allegation, something I haven't heard before and dispatched a dozen times.
Disgusting Discussing = The action of making a show of tackling a problem or opponent while avoiding any direct engagement.

You do not have to show up to your own show. Knowledge on demand is a recorded script of what's already happened. Knowledge on demand is a reactionary request, it's known as being the recipient of your own echo.

So what else is new? oh that's right, knowledge on demand is new, that past dead and gone stuff appearing as presently alive. Imagine that Cinderella could ever know her biological Father. Now that would be something new.

Next new thing on the evolutionary agenda...IMMORTALITY Image


Nature wins the game of life, not mortal man...but you had your uses, which as it happens, turns out to be uselessness.

Really IC, you really do not want to hear anything new, in fact you've already rejected it many times and will continue to do so while you falsely believe that you know you are alive. Machines cannot know their makers.


.
Age
Posts: 11016
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:55 am
Dubious wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:40 am I never said it was a conclusion. I said it was a “result as compared to".
A "criterion" is not a "result" at all. :roll:

It's a standard by which one hopes to form and justify a "result" or "conclusion."

I continue to talk to Atheists in the hope of hearing something new...some challenging, novel, interesting, heretofore unthought-of allegation, something I haven't heard before and dispatched a dozen times. But I must report that your conversation of the moment is exceedingly dull, routine and unchallenging. You've raised no old Atheist saw that is not abundantly dealt with on myriad apologetics websites, to which you could easily have referred before now, and thus, none of this cavilling requires I lift a finger. Not a single interesting, innovative or insightful idea has come out of you so far, in regards to this topic.

So I'll give you one more shot, in the vain hope you're capable of better; then I'll just start not paying attention to you again. Life's too short to waste on a string of cliches.

Go ahead.
Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of just how 'condescending' some human beings really were, back in the days when this was being written.

"immanuel can", itself, has offered absolutely NOTHING 'new' but criticizes "others" for doing the EXACT SAME thing.

'you', "immanuel can", have FAILED MISERABLY on just about EVERY occasion someone has CHALLENGED you on your CLAIMS about God, and as for being a so-called "christian" 'you' are FAILING MISERABLY at that as well.
Dontaskme
Posts: 12762
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:16 am
Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of just how 'condescending' some human beings really were, back in the days when this was being written.

You are wasting your time insulting IC...aka ( some human beings ) he is a self-claimed untouchable, while being the first one to piss and moan when the insult is on him.

He hasn't quite mastered the concept of a teflon mind. It's quite hilarious really. I'm sure IC has cursed objects many times, even though we all know objects are deaf dumb and blind, so who on earth he is referring to when he too curses, is anyone's guess, oh wait...I have an idea! :lol:

IC is untouchable, I really hope for his sake he understands that's just not true, I'd hate to walk around with shit in my pants and never know it...Oh wait! .... :lol: shit happens right, there are reactions to what is always a unitary action...but that knowledge does not compute with IC, he doesn't quite grasp the absurd irrational notion of oneness, because his head grew too big it blocked out the sun. Also, IC uses covert abuse, it's a tactic he uses to blindside you into believing that he is the good guy and you are just a piece of crap. But we all know that He can give it, but he cannot take it.

That pearl of wisdom is for IC...not you Age, just so you know before you go getting your knickers in a twist too.





.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:51 amOne reason I haven't responded to you is because doing so is not unlike responding to IC, your main interlocutor who has long been infamous for his incessant distortions and lies. What you state here, I have nothing to do with, nor would I be in agreement...which is all I have to say to you.
It is actually hard not to distort, to some degree, on forums like this. Many times I have tried to encapsulate and reduce what someone seems to be saying and then been told that I did not get it right. And I admit that I have been conflating you with DontAskMe, perhaps because your adamancy in opposition to IC seems to have a similar base? I now have a set of pliers beside my laptop and will use them to disentangle yous.

I went back seeking a post of yours that seems to express your ideas clearly and in some detail:
The existential quandaries of the modern psyche are very different from what they used to be. Beliefs that once supported it for over a thousand years no-longer suffices. A new kind of metanoia is required which in turn needs time to create since it can never be a purely conscious creation but one which must be rooted.
You are making a statement here which is assertive and declarative -- but it is just an assertion. I am not at all convinced that things have fundamentally changed. Though it does seem to me that many things are terribly confused.

And how would you describe 'the new metatonia'?
Having said that, what I find, as do others, intensely objectionable about you are not your beliefs per se, but your unceasing attempt to make yourself superior to everyone who doesn’t subscribe to a biblical mandate of morality - its so-called god prescriptions - being instead compelled to ponder existence with a question mark since a millennial belief system no-longer functions as it once did. There is also the constant perversion of what others have written, especially if it’s factual, historical, etc., in which case it either gets mutilated, ignored or responded to with totally misleading statements. You’ve done that through thousands of posts of which you’ve been constantly reminded. While on this site, I don’t expect that to ever stop.
I am not sure if with an imperious wave of your hand you can simply dismiss what have been the core concerns (here we are speaking of Christian belief and practice) for a great long while. I am inclined to see, to propose that as many like yourself assume this is so, that in fact the core questions come that much more to the surface. They do not fade away but become more strongly materialized.
In spite of being rabid, your theism amounts to nothing more than a surface theism, a take-up of Pascal’s wager. Nothing deep, mystical or profound here; no searching for truth values beyond those historically accepted. Yours is just a form of opportunism. If god is dead, it’s because what's killed is an outworn fiction once believed in, having long cradled the psyche in ways we can no-longer experience. The one item which may still yield some comfort especially in Catholicism as opposed to Protestantism are its still surviving traditions of ritual, symbols and art which I think of as the ghosts of past beliefs. I wonder how many still go to church without any belief in transubstantiation or acceptance that Jesus was the son of god except metaphorically.
What do you propose should be stated as it pertains to what is deep, mystical and profound? How would you talk about what is profound? (If you really had to do that and not merely refer to profundity?)

What 'truth values' do you propose should be brought out and sought after?

I am not convinced that what we are discussing -- which is underpinned by specific values and assertions of value -- are now no longer valid. So if something like a fiction (as in fictional story) is no longer believable, and indeed the Gospel stories are often disbelieved, I am not at all sure that the underlying meanings there have been dismissed as the *fictions* you assert they are.

In any case the more that I examine these values, the asserted values of Christian belief and doctrine, the more value they seem to have.

In many ways I agree that religious symbols are "the ghosts of past beliefs" but that is just a turn of phrase. What is referred to through a symbol is often hard to define, perhaps, but seems to remain constant and also valid. Yet you imply that those values (whatever they are and whatever you refer to) now no longer have meaning or validity? Are you sure you have such a basis to make that bold assertion?

Here you allude to something true -- that the possibility of belief has been undermined. In traditional Catholicism it is said that "modernism is the synthesis of heresies". Seen in that way, from that perspective, it is a statement with some logic.

But it seems to me more interesting to genuinely make the comparison between what specific values are, or were, asserted prior to the *modernism* Pius X decried, and what is supplanting or replacing them. This has been my endeavor: to try to *see* what the old metaphysics attempts to present. It is an act of discernment not necessarily of asserting a dogmatic position. At the same time, as old values are being swept away, and not necessarily to good effect, the New Metaphysics can be examined critically.
The best way to articulate and summarize the obscene discrepancy in your views is your extreme assertion that whoever accepts the bible's injunctions of morality is intrinsically superior to an atheist who may believe in the same code; what makes him inferior is he has no reason to adhere, not having received or heard the mandate from on high, but merely supervised by his own conscience. In effect, no sacred attributes can be appended to someone who thinks for himself and therefore remains inferior in spite of the moral context being essentially equal. For you, it's not the result, but the conditions which create it which solely determines its validity.
It is an interesting issue or problem. But there is some contradiction in what you say here when compared to your previous assertion that there are (new?) truth-values beyond those historically accepted.

The 'supervision by one's own conscience' is, in a definite sense, to receive from on-high. In any case these two thing definitely (in traditional thought) operate together, don't you think?

If this is true for IC: "For you, it's not the result, but the conditions which create it which solely determines its validity", in my own case I am not sure, in precise terms, what I am after. But I do (myself) adopt a strategy, and it is that many things that are dismissed so imperiously in our modern era, with such adamancy and declarative assertiveness, all of these things I have chosen, consciously, to examine on my own, one by one, to determine if indeed this is justified and if indeed it is a good thing.

I have generally determined that a great deal of what is jettisoned must be preserved. And thus I determine that I will preserve it -- if only in my own self or for myself alone.
Frankly, it's hard to think of anything more demented, whether atheist or theist! I always thought it was, at least philosophically, the other way around; the person ordered to do a good deed is inferior to him who does it spontaneously as directed by conscience. Since god supposedly gave us erring mortals an instrument of judgement, it should be used in the manner designed but that, by your logic, would make me inferior to someone such as thou who has received his marching orders from the foremost CEO imagination ever invented!
I think that if you examine IC more closely (he and I have had this conversation) you will find that his view is truly Protestant in the sense that for a choice to be really ethical (and moral) it has to be chosen consciously and not merely *obeyed*. I have a strong sense that he would refer to metanoia (in his set of definitions) that go hand in glove with ethical choices.
the foremost CEO imagination ever invented!
Your idea here reminds me of what Camille Paglia has said about the idea of God. The supreme, masculine, human tool.
Nick_A
Posts: 5927
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Kierkegaard wrote (quoted in Protestant Thought in the 19th Century by Claude Welch p.294)
Christendom has done away with Christianity, without being quite aware of it. The consequence is that, if anything is to be done, one must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom.
Aware or not, Christianity no longer exists in modern secular society. The only hope for those who need Christianity is to contemplate it on the assumption That Simone Weil was right when she wrote of the transcendent kingdom and that a person can become aware of through noesis or the higher function of the intellect and objective conscience bypassing the domain of opinions. Maybe that is what is meant by the elect? Who knows
I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15275
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:50 am ...avoiding any direct engagement.
I spent a loooong time with you, waiting for you to say something that wasn't empty drama, hoping something interesting would be forthcoming.

It wasn't.

Conversation is a privilege, not a right. And if you won't contribute meaningfully, you loose the privilege. That's how it works.
Dontaskme
Posts: 12762
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:29 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:50 am ...avoiding any direct engagement.
I spent a loooong time with you, waiting for you to say something that wasn't empty drama, hoping something interesting would be forthcoming.

It wasn't.

Conversation is a privilege, not a right. And if you won't contribute meaningfully, you loose the privilege. That's how it works.
Oh my God just listen to yourself, seriously IC if you never spoke to me again it would be too soon. I don't care if I lose the privilege of engaging with your royal highness. It's obvious you will never be able to stop reading my responses, just in case you find something that may be of interest to someone who is all knowing like yourself... reading my responses in my logic is engaging yourself in something only you are privileged to do so. So just help yourself, fill your boots, but no one but yourself is forcing you to fulfil your privilege and right to read any response from me.

There is one thing you have forget to remember IC, and that is it's really hard for you not to read, but it's very very easy for you to ignore what is hard to read... Idiot.

.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15275
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:29 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:50 am ...avoiding any direct engagement.
I spent a loooong time with you, waiting for you to say something that wasn't empty drama, hoping something interesting would be forthcoming.

It wasn't.

Conversation is a privilege, not a right. And if you won't contribute meaningfully, you loose the privilege. That's how it works.
...if you never spoke to me again it would be too soon.
:D
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:22 pmBut there are a great many people who are just committed to the way they've chosen...some of them are even here, on this site, perhaps. And short of breaking their wills and destroying their independent judgment and personhood, even God Himself cannot bring them to change. They just won't have it. They curse and roar more and more, and call everyone who tells them of judgment to mind their own business...but of wisdom and repentance, they refuse to know anything.
Of that generation, the generation that produced things like the Port Huron Statement, two things happened: a lot of them got older, settled down, and became the "Yuppies" of the '80s. They raised families, made a ton of money, lived in the suburbs, and voted Democrat. But they sold out their "revolution," and they know it.
The other thing that happened is that a lot of those radicals went into fields related to things like the arts, politics and particularly, education. And there, they tried to manipulate others into adopting the same twisted ideology they had imbibed in the '60s. They made Gramsci's "Long March" through the culture, and grabbed hold of all the pedagogical positions they could, from which they could trumpet their values to coming generations. They became the propagandist caste, and we live with their poisonous legacy right now.
It seems to me that the entire notion of salvation and redemption, in the Christian sense, is very confused. There is no fixed definition of what 'salvation' is. I think that you outline, in the above-quoted paragraphs, that at least in some senses you see the practice of Christianity, and perhaps in some sense salvation and redemption, in social and political terms. But if you were to go that route, the depth of critique would have to extend into all aspects of culture and civilization and for a very long time (in fact for all time).

You have said that to be 'saved' is to have been freed from the consequences of sin. As if by some act of contrition, some act of declaring commitment, or simply a willingness to receive it, that the slate is wiped clean. Well, that is the idea behind Catholic conversion as well (when there was lengthy preparation in advance of being admitted into the body of the Church). But in the old-school sense of what Catholicism is, it involves a life-long commitment to a whole range of activities, a social doctrine and a spiritual commitment.

Many Evangelicals describe their 'redemptive experience' as a moment's decision. They came to the end of the line of their own wills, and surrendered in one moment. It has never seemed to me to be enough (though I do not doubt that many Christian Evangelicals go on to continue their 'walk with Christ' and their 'discipleship to Christ' with many other levels of commitment (which I do not deny and which I respect).

And in a sense that I do not think can be denied any particular person can have a 'conversion experience' as they often describe, and who could make any statement at all as to whether it was 'genuine' and who could say if it was truly 'effective'? Who would make that assessment? There is no external assessor.

When you examine the more wacky manifestations of lunatic Evangelism, who could say that these people, the people that enact this or those it is enacted on, have not been 'truly and definitely saved'?
Nick_A
Posts: 5927
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Alexis
If this is true for IC: "For you, it's not the result, but the conditions which create it which solely determines its validity", in my own case I am not sure, in precise terms, what I am after. But I do (myself) adopt a strategy, and it is that many things that are dismissed so imperiously in our modern era, with such adamancy and declarative assertiveness, all of these things I have chosen, consciously, to examine on my own, one by one, to determine if indeed this is justified and if indeed it is a good thing.

I have generally determined that a great deal of what is jettisoned must be preserved. And thus I determine that I will preserve it -- if only in my own self or for myself alone.
Knowing what to preserve isn't so obvious. For example consider Genesis 1 first from the KJV
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And now from the NIV:
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Experts in NIV seek to eliminate "confusion" and translate it as the same. A good idea? Not for the Simones of the World.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

[Double post submitted in error]
Dontaskme
Posts: 12762
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:42 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:29 pm
I spent a loooong time with you, waiting for you to say something that wasn't empty drama, hoping something interesting would be forthcoming.

It wasn't.

Conversation is a privilege, not a right. And if you won't contribute meaningfully, you loose the privilege. That's how it works.
...if you never spoke to me again it would be too soon.
:D
Still reading what you believe is what I wont contribute as meaningful... :D haha!

Still like to be waving your big stick eh?
Post Reply