Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:28 am You dumb motherfuckers need to disabuse yourselves of the idea that deism is a club with set rules and a rulin' body and a mission statement. Shit, there isn't even a common understanding of what it means for God to be absent or indifferent or withdrawn.

Certainly, you dumb motherfuckers need to stop lookin' to me as forum defender of vanilla deism or famous deists of yesteryear.

I shouldn't, I guess, blame you dumb motherfuckers: most of you have so deeply immersed yourselves in garbage thinkin', herd thinkin', you can't help but treat everyone as the cattle you are.

Henry sez he's libertarian, so he must align with all libertarians; henry sez he's a deist, so he must align with all deists; he favor fee enterprise, so he must love corporate capitalism, and on and on...

Fuck you, you dumb motherfucker, you.
Now this post -- outburst -- speaks volumes!!
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

Mebbe, mebbe not.

"Certainly, you dumb motherfuckers need to stop lookin' to me as forum defender of vanilla deism"

But would you defend Vanilla Ice?

"Van Winkle had been renovating a neighboring home at the time and said the arrest was "a misunderstanding" and "blown out of proportion" in February after leaving jail, NBC station NBC Miami reported."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnew ... ncna334806

Was this just an opportunistic police department trying to stir up media by fuckin with celebrity and good, responsible citizen, V. Winkle?

Or was Winkle involved in nefarious activities in violation of the principles set forward by libertarian deism?

Discuss.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 5:07 am ...DEAD END.
You through yet? 8)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Nick_A wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:41 am
promethean75 wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:12 am That's all childish pseudo-erotic neoplatonism tho, Nick. All the higher self rebirth talk is a nervous idealistic response to the existential dread we feel when we recognize our own meaninglessness. It's the Peter pan syndrome basically.
Then you believe that the Great Chain of Being is just nonsense. Where Man resides on earth in the great chain of being, the earth is just a machine performing a function of transforming substances. Human meaning doesn't exist on earth and you are right to conclude it to be meaningless for Man. However the conscious evolution of Man reveals human meaning and purpose animal man tied to the earth cannot have. Evolved Man receives from above and gives to below. For animal Man there is only the struggle within the below or the will to power Nietzsche referred to
Nick, it's your time to waste, but -- please understand -- you are wastin' your time.

Pro, and others like him, in-forum, think we're all just animals, that morality is a joke, and that people like you, Mannie, me, Walker, etc., are fools.

They have nuthin' but contempt for us.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

Well I think that's a little excessive. Fools are capable of being reformed while idiots, morons and imbeciles are not. These men you speak of are only fools.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:54 am
Nick_A wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:41 am
promethean75 wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:12 am That's all childish pseudo-erotic neoplatonism tho, Nick. All the higher self rebirth talk is a nervous idealistic response to the existential dread we feel when we recognize our own meaninglessness. It's the Peter pan syndrome basically.
Then you believe that the Great Chain of Being is just nonsense. Where Man resides on earth in the great chain of being, the earth is just a machine performing a function of transforming substances. Human meaning doesn't exist on earth and you are right to conclude it to be meaningless for Man. However the conscious evolution of Man reveals human meaning and purpose animal man tied to the earth cannot have. Evolved Man receives from above and gives to below. For animal Man there is only the struggle within the below or the will to power Nietzsche referred to
Nick, it's your time to waste, but -- please understand -- you are wastin' your time.

Pro, and others like him, in-forum, think we're all just animals, that morality is a joke, and that people like you, Mannie, me, Walker, etc., are fools.

They have nuthin' but contempt for us.
True, but what is it about being attracted to the truths above the world attracts so much hostility? Being aware that Man is not the ultimate intelligence is too hard to admit
If the perfectly just (i.e., righteous) man were to come into the world…“He will be scourged, racked, bound. He will have his eyes burned out. And at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled.” Plato's Republic
Does this have to be the way of the world or at least on philosophy forums. People can argue details but wholeness is a poison. If Plato is right, an influential minority have always violently attacked the call to objective meaning.

Look what happens even in the world. Groups like BLM and Antifa burn down buildings in hate thinking themselves as the necessary good. Why are so many attracted to the obvious absurdity which even justifies the kill? We have to understand the mob mind to protect those who will be swallowed up in it
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

what is it about being attracted to the truths above the world (that) attracts so much hostility?
Damn good question.

Ask them.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Nick_A wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:11 pm
Use white light as an example. It contains all the vibrations that can devolve into our experience of colors. Red, yellow, and blue, are the first lawful division of white light. Are the vibrations of primary colors a dream or a necessity to complete the wholeness of God? Is the lawful division of the whole into its parts a dream or a lawful necessity?
It doesn't matter what you call IT / This / or whatever consciousness is... white light, or god, or nature ...who cares...reality is unknowable full stop, however, evolution manifested that man would become aware of concepts that would superimpose a picture/image upon what can never be known. As an observer, this is known without doubt or error. But you cannot know the observer, you can only be the observer. You have no image except what you dream up.

You can dream-up/paint an image of yourself, but your identity or image will always be just a picture, an object of your desire. Therefore, objects are all you can relate to, objects will be your only reality. However, objects know nothing.
So back to square one...the state of Not-Knowing.
This is the truth of Non-duality, that most minds find difficult to accept. Most minds would rather be identified with the dream character than be left in a state of Not-knowing.That's normal, understandable.


The only necessity I can see to exist, is the need to know the difference between what is harmful to the body and what is safe. For example: knowing that pain hurts, one needs to refrain from hurting not only itself, but other sentient feeling creatures. That's the only morality here, insofar as you wouldn't deliberately harm yourself because you know it hurts, so it's only logical to know not to harm other feeling creatures, as you would not harm yourself...this is all self-evident.
The knowing that pain is bad and the absence of pain is good is where your idea of morality comes from. It comes from the unique human capacity to be able to comunicate with itself and others using words, with attached meaning.

This obvious realisation does not NEED some kind of metaphysical diety to be idolised, or worshipped, or be ever grateful for.

If you want to praise anything at all, then praise the absence of pain, or have contempt for the pain, and relief when the pain has gone....And know there is no other thing outside of your own sentient aware being... giving you pain or taking the pain away...pain or no pain is happening all by ITself...you are this IT....the same IT which grows the grass.

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Nick_A wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 5:11 pmBut more recently people need the truths of science to verify the need for a conscious source of creation.
Why though?

Why is there a need for verification for a conscious source of creation?

And where would the verification come from exactly?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Walker »

promethean75 wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:46 am
...
But would you defend Vanilla Ice?
...
Discuss.
:lol:
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Walker »

Nick_A wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:41 am
promethean75 wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:12 am That's all childish pseudo-erotic neoplatonism tho, Nick. All the higher self rebirth talk is a nervous idealistic response to the existential dread we feel when we recognize our own meaninglessness. It's the Peter pan syndrome basically.
Then you believe that the Great Chain of Being is just nonsense. Where Man resides on earth in the great chain of being, the earth is just a machine performing a function of transforming substances. Human meaning doesn't exist on earth and you are right to conclude it to be meaningless for Man. However the conscious evolution of Man reveals human meaning and purpose animal man tied to the earth cannot have. Evolved Man receives from above and gives to below. For animal Man there is only the struggle within the below or the will to power Nietzsche referred to
I feel the need for e-prime.

In the Great Chain, everything causes any particular thing, any link connects to all links.

In order to persist as it has, Christianity resonates with emotions. Emotion drives Christianity. Forgiveness, or behaving as a Christian, activates human emotion that causes Christian actions.

When needed, forgiveness for his own dark deeds awakens Man’s emotional capacity to forgive others for their hurtfulness. Man’s need for forgiveness, for what no human can forgive, causes emotional torment that burns like hell.

Emotions caused by redemption are the private evolution. Actions caused by forgiving are the evidence of human “evolution.”

Man’s intellectual arrogance lies in forgiving what lies beyond his right to forgive, and in condemning what lies beyond his understanding.

Forgiveness gives insight to this broad-shouldered arrogance of forgiving * beyond one’s right to forgive, and adds perspective which encourages equanimity, which often manifests in words as part of an intellectually fair and delightfully rational package deal. Forgiveness also presents in deeds, as kindness.

More than an ideal, the words and deeds dynamically manifest in all situations, even adversity. The Christian religion attempts to awaken this choiceless dynamic to the same degree of choicelessness, as Jesus' actions.

* and apologizing
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Walker »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:39 am
And where would the verification come from exactly?
As explained by e-prime where be-ing is not, it comes from emotions.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:37 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:27 pmAt the same time, your description also reinforces the key difference between our approaches that I identified in my summary: namely, that you undertake analysis at the cultural or macro level, and I at the spiritual and existential, or personal level. Each of us sees our respective levels of analysis as not only the most revealing and informative, but also as the determinative one. I believe that no progress is possible without reconstruction of the individual man (or woman), and you seem to hold that social reconstruction will somehow issue in any progress of the individual man, assuming you suppose such is necessary at all.

In short, you're attempting cultural analysis, and I, spiritual analysis. Two conservative viewpoints (essentially), but different styles of analysis.

You are somewhat drawn to a form of cultural determinism, in that culture "determines" the outcome for the individual; I am not convinced of that viewpoint, but rather would say that human freedom, as exercised by the unpredetermined choices of the individual, is the important force to engage in any attempt to improve things.

Have I pegged your position aright? Is that not the difference you perceive as well?
In order to respond to you, intellectually and to a degree abstractly, I have to define that there are two general but distinct issues here. One has to do with the question of *What Christianity is*
How about we just answer the question.
and the other has to do with *What sort of Christian you are*
Heh. :D Ad hominem. Not relevant, both for reasons of logic and for empirical reasons. You neither know what I am, nor is it relevant in the slightest.
You resist any focus that shines light on you as a person
That's because that "focus" is nonsense. It's a mere distractor from the relevant. And, I might add, it's not "light": it's what's called in the US, "throwing shade." :wink:

Look, Alexis: I honestly care not a fig what insults you want to throw at me. I care even less what assessment you try to make of me as a Christian. But it's boring to deal with somebody who doesn't even understand why ad homs are fallacies. It's circling around the nonsensical all the time. And frankly, who has time to waste on that?
you tendentiously resolve to separate out from what Christianity really is
That allegation takes for granted that you already know what a Christian really is. If you didn't think you did, you wouldn't be able to think this.

I'm simply pointing out that you don't know. You've got it wrong. And you may believe me or not; it won't change whether your present definition is wrong...it still will be, in either case. So you can choose to keep being wrong if you want. I've done my best to help you see the problems inherent in your current defintion, but that seems to threaten your theory too much for you even to contemplate.

And that's fine. We all make our choices.
"I believe that no progress is possible without reconstruction of the individual man (or woman)"
What I need to point out to you is that this is more, a great deal more, than what it appears.
:D No, it's what it appears.

But the conspiracy-mindedness does amuse somewhat, I must confess.
Basically, you cannot understand (comprehend) much of what I talk about.

Sure I can. It's actually very easy.

But if "you must agree with me" is your starting position, which it seems to be, then I suspect you're going to have a lot of very boring, uninformative, one-sided and probably short conversations.

Well, Alexis, you have your view, it seems. I'm a little disappointed, I must confess, that you turn out to be inclined to make ad hom errors over and over and over again, and to return to them instead of thinking about the actual positions we may represent. But I understand -- the ad hominem is what people go to when they feel their ability to defend on the issues is threatened. It's a "shiny object" they shake over to the left, to distract a perceived threat from criticizing their actual position.

You know what I think? I think you sense the vulnerability of your definitions. I say this because when I put a blunt challenge to your theory (such as how you propose to reconcile the Inquisitions, the Wars of Religion or the Crusades with the teaching of Christ) you don't answer. You don't even try to answer. Instead, you go right to ground, appealing to the ad hominem as fast as you can, and ignoring the problem altogether.

But you misunderstand my purpose. It's to help you make your theory more sophisticated, more accurate, more explanatory, and more effective by pointing out some very obvious and serious vulnerabilities in your initial articulation of it. That's actually not a hostile project, but a helpful one. However, seeing that it is misperceived as hostile, I shall refrain now.

And your theory will have to be as good or bad as your initial articulation of it, if you are determined not to allow the theory to be questioned.

Off you go, I guess. No hard feelings. Be well.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5146
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Promethean: That's all childish pseudo-erotic neoplatonism tho, Nick. All the higher self rebirth talk is a nervous idealistic response to the existential dread we feel when we recognize our own meaninglessness. It's the Peter pan syndrome basically.
A couple of preliminary notes

One is that, like it or not, we [Occidental humanity certainly] have entered a new world, a new and different phase. Let us suppose that we understand that what Nietzsche prophesied was not, as IC would say, the ravings of a Satanic lunatic, but rather a high-strung but necessary statement about a new phase of awareness. What statements could be fairly made to describe what this is? This 'new phase'? We have been talking about this for the longest time but how could it be put into clipped statements? The essence of it is just as Nietzsche put it: someone came along and 'erased the horizon'. Meaning, the former picture, which was so inclusive, so dramatically holistic, so necessary for a conscious being to have because it allows for one to conceive of oneself within a *world of meaning* -- this was erased.

Now a statement has to be made about The Great Chain of Being. This was, and it still is but it is a 'fading shadow', and an excellent example of a *picture*, where the forms and relationships described grow less and less distinct. Is the picture real or is it unreal? Well, if you see the Earth as located at the center of all created things and the planetary orbs as located in great spinning circles which exert an influence down here on the plane of Earth, and if you see human consciousness as a striving, within a cosmic drama, for eventual merging with angelic, godly being (this is s simplified diagram of an immense, complex and beautiful visualization/construction), then I suppose that one could still *see* things through this perceptual model.

But we have to face the facts: the New Way of seeing and of discovering ourselves, and also truth, within the material-scientific reality, has supplanted the old mode of perception and the Picture that made it possible to visualize. I state this as a fact. We did not choose it, I did not choose it, and you did not choose it, it came about. And there is nothing anyone can do to 'go back' or turn back the clock or reverse the emergent perceptual mode.

What does this mean? What does this portend? A great deal. But one of them is that we are *cut off* from a conceptual pathway through which we can ally ourselves with what, formerly, was 'guiding angelic intelligence'. That short 'phrase guiding angelic intelligence' now means nothing. For the person who now lives in the 'real world' of materialistic science and literal description the phrase cannot mean anything, except if it is understood to be a poem. (I think this is where Walker refers to emotion and emotionalism).

Promethean, therefore, is 'making statements' which have the tone of absolutism because, as he sees 'the world' -- he is a disciple of the New Mode of seeing and believes absolutely in it -- there is really no alternative. Thus he defines TRUTH. And to one degree or another (it is always an issue of degrees) Iambiguous, Dubious, Uwot, Walker and many others also live in, perceive in, and then make statements about the most ultimate question: meaning. Trust me on this: when the former Picture collapsed, meaning collapsed with it.

So it is just as Promethean says: when he describes our situation and the "existential dread we feel when we recognize our own meaninglessness". In order to make that statement, he had to have predicated himself within an ultimate description. And if a predicated position is not ultimate it is on shaky ground. So Promethean attempts through the declarative certainty of his predication to say ultimate things. You have to pay attention to the phrasing.
Nick: Then you believe that the Great Chain of Being is just nonsense. Where Man resides on earth in the great chain of being, the earth is just a machine performing a function of transforming substances. Human meaning doesn't exist on earth and you are right to conclude it to be meaningless for Man. However the conscious evolution of Man reveals human meaning and purpose animal man tied to the earth cannot have. Evolved Man receives from above and gives to below. For animal Man there is only the struggle within the below or the will to power Nietzsche referred to.
Here, the problem is weird. What is the problem? The core of it has to do with one World Picture in a sort of truth-competition with another World Picture. The former on allowed for, and indeed still holds, nearly all of our sense of meaning & value. The New Perception, in fact, destroys the possibility of the former one as being *true*. Thus it collapses, down into ruins effectively, that which made our civilization possible. I am not sure if people recognize the full ramifications of the 'wiping away of the horizon'.

So then the problem is: Is it that everything that the Former Perceptual System pictured, or allowed to come forward through what was pictured -- let's call that simply meaning & value -- has all of this now been nullified? That is one part. Burt the second is Does everything that the former picture allowed to be recognized, understood and lived by, now now longer operative? But this is not quite it, either. Does meaning & value exist, cosmically, in our cosmos, even if the 'picture' through which it is seen and visualized and concretized, is all this 'wiped away' as well? That is, as Promethean proclaims, is all that was formerly true now, really & truly, false?

You see -- we have to come to the point where we can really see our present situation. Because this is the real depth-problem.
Walker wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:26 pmI feel the need for e-prime.

In the Great Chain, everything causes any particular thing, any link connects to all links.

In order to persist as it has, Christianity resonates with emotions. Emotion drives Christianity. Forgiveness, or behaving as a Christian, activates human emotion that causes Christian actions.

When needed, forgiveness for his own dark deeds awakens Man’s emotional capacity to forgive others for their hurtfulness. Man’s need for forgiveness, for what no human can forgive, causes emotional torment that burns like hell.
This is not a clear enough statement. True, TGCOB visualized an interconnected cosmos of 'as above, so below'. It is true as well that something in the *below* -- for example a diamond -- we understood to correspond to something *up above* (sol but also to the angelic band in which the sol moved). All of this allowed for perception through relationships of correspondence.

But to say that emotion drives "Christianity" is simply false. Very false in fact. But what Christianity are we referring to? Are you positing, say, Immanuel Can's modernist version of Christianity? Or the 'real' Christianity which has been part and parcel of the Occidental perceptual world for 1,000 to 1,500 years? That Christianity is really, and I say this fairly, another world.

It is more proper and truthful to say that Christianity (as understood previously) was ultra-intellectual, except the terms of intellection (the world that was perceived) was utterly different than it is now. Yet traces remain.
Henry: Pro, and others like him, in-forum, think we're all just animals, that morality is a joke, and that people like you, Mannie, me, Walker, etc., are fools.

They have nuthin' but contempt for us.
But let's make a more fair and more true statement: they are only doing what their 'core predicates' dictate must be done! They can't do anything else once you understand, and can recite, what their predicates are. From their perceptual position, their stance, their location, if you start talking about *angelic intelligence* and concomitantly of *meanings & values* that were born in another temporal modality, literally another perceptual order of signt, understanding and relationship, what else could they do but laugh at you?

The irony is that we are *all animals*. It is really a question of how Man defines, even now, within the perceptual model of ultra-modernity and scientific rationalism, his distinct and different awareness (*consciousness*) as compared to the world of biology and the ecological systems of Nature. In that world there is nothing but animality, plant-live, and the circulation of matter in flowing energy-systems.

The more interesting thing, I'd say, is to step back to a place, a locality, where the drama between inividuals who are *stuck* within competing and antagonistic perceptual models rages. Allow me to quote from Lucretius in De Rerum Natura (The Way Things are):
'Tis sweet, when, down the mighty main, the winds
Roll up its waste of waters, from the land
To watch another's labouring anguish far,
Not that we joyously delight that man
Should thus be smitten, but because 'tis sweet
To mark what evils we ourselves be spared;
'Tis sweet, again, to view the mighty strife
Of armies embattled yonder o'er the plains,
Ourselves no sharers in the peril; but naught
There is more goodly than to hold the high
Serene plateaus, well fortressed by the wise,
Whence thou may'st look below on other men
And see them ev'rywhere wand'ring, all dispersed
In their lone seeking for the road of life . . .
Nick: True, but what is it about being attracted to the truths above the world attracts so much hostility? Being aware that Man is not the ultimate intelligence is too hard to admit
My suggestion here is to follow and become aware of the strategy and the manoeuvre that became ncessary when Modernity crushed the meaning & value that formerly enlivened the world and man's world of perception. It will sound trite perhaps, or is it cliché? but when the Outer World can no longer reflect sufficiently all those levels of meaning & value that formerly *existed*, the only manoeuvre open (and that makes sense and renders profit) is a shift-inward. Essentially, this is what CG Jung did.

To see all the elements of the Picture as being expressions of (projections of) the psyche. Therefore, the 'psyche' and the inner world of man's soul lights up as the realm of all possible adventure and discovery. And this goes on which the Outer World falls prey (as Jung did assert) to the *other side of the divine coin* which is chaos and the demoniac.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5146
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:44 pm Well, Alexis, you have your view, it seems. I'm a little disappointed, I must confess, that you turn out to be inclined to make ad hom errors over and over and over again, and to return to them instead of thinking about the actual positions we may represent. But I understand -- the ad hominem is what people go to when they feel their ability to defend on the issues is threatened. It's a "shiny object" they shake over to the left, to distract a perceived threat from criticizing their actual position.

You know what I think? I think you sense the vulnerability of your definitions. I say this because when I put a blunt challenge to your theory (such as how you propose to reconcile the Inquisitions, the Wars of Religion or the Crusades with the teaching of Christ) you don't answer. You don't even try to answer. Instead, you go right to ground, appealing to the ad hominem as fast as you can, and ignoring the problem altogether.

But you misunderstand my purpose. It's to help you make your theory more sophisticated, more accurate, more explanatory, and more effective by pointing out some very obvious and serious vulnerabilities in your initial articulation of it. That's actually not a hostile project, but a helpful one. However, seeing that it is misperceived as hostile, I shall refrain now.

And your theory will have to be as good or bad as your initial articulation of it, if you are determined not to allow the theory to be questioned.

Off you go, I guess. No hard feelings. Be well.
I am glad to see you have your big-boy pants on today!

I don't give a rat's ass what you are appointed or disappointed with. I have said to you time and again that we have no other option but to refer to *the man* -- how we are constructed -- but that this must be done carefully, respectfully, and thoughtfully. And that is how I do it.

Yes, certainly, I have my view. And my view is just as I explained to you in this post. In that post, according to my understanding, I have located you and I have done so fairly as well as constructively. You will call this 'ad hominem argumentation' as a tactic to avoid dealing with the content.

I have and I do think "about the actual positions we may represent" and I say that this cannot be done except if we consider the history of ideas as well as sociological, cultural, and political/social issues.
...the ad hominem is what people go to when they feel their ability to defend on the issues is threatened. It's a "shiny object" they shake over to the left, to distract a perceived threat from criticizing their actual position.
I regard this as part-and-parcel of the bullshitter's scam you run. Because I have included acute criticism of the platform where you are located (in Non-Denominational Protestantism) and the role it serves in our present, you dishonestly assert that this is irrelevant and that you can fairly and necessarily reject all of it therefore.

The 'shiny object' twist (now you associate me with the Left!) is an interesting turn, that I admit.
You know what I think? I think you sense the vulnerability of your definitions. I say this because when I put a blunt challenge to your theory (such as how you propose to reconcile the Inquisitions, the Wars of Religion or the Crusades with the teaching of Christ) you don't answer. You don't even try to answer. Instead, you go right to ground, appealing to the ad hominem as fast as you can, and ignoring the problem altogether.

But you misunderstand my purpose. It's to help you make your theory more sophisticated, more accurate, more explanatory, and more effective by pointing out some very obvious and serious vulnerabilities in your initial articulation of it. That's actually not a hostile project, but a helpful one. However, seeing that it is misperceived as hostile, I shall refrain now.
No, this is I think a dishonest posture. I think that you sole purpose is as a Christian apologist for a very specific religious and ultra-modern Christian position. You have no other purpose. You cannot really be involved in *the world of ideas* because of your sole and primary religious commitment. When you can't make progress with your apologetics your final result is to say "you'll soon be in Hell". Your entire argument, your entire position, is located in this.
However, seeing that it is misperceived as hostile, I shall refrain now.
Hostile? No, I do not see any of this in that way. Again I carefully explained my position in the post I linked to above. You canot see and you cannot understand as an act of your will what I am pointing out, and why.

You will refrain now for other reasons.
Post Reply