Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

If you have a conception of justice, love, and free will that you think falsifies one or more of the argument's premises, then present it, and we can assess (a) whether it is reasonable, and (b) if so, whether it really does falsify any premise. Until then, the argument remains cogent.

That's not how it works, Harry.

The responsibility to justify the accusation falls on the accuser. You say God is "unjust." Well, what concept of "justice" are you referring to? There's nothing "cogent" about a question that lacks a definition for its key term.

And it's term 1.

[Harry Baird]

Well, what concept of "justice" are you referring to?

A broadly sane and rational one. A concept of justice in which a person is damned to eternal, unimaginable torment for even minor, finite so-called sins committed during a finite life is not a sane and rational one. It appears to be the one that you are defending though, so, go on and mount that defence. On what conception of justice is this just?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, what concept of "justice" are you referring to?

A broadly sane and rational one.

No, no...not a bunch of praise and self-congratulation for a term you've left undefined, and not accusations that depend on that undefined term...a real definition of the term.

What is "justice"? Define it.

[Harry Baird]

Ah, so, you're still not willing to defend your insane, unreasonable conception of justice, in which finite, even minor transgressions merit infinite and unimaginable punishment. You just want to try to turn the question back on me. It doesn't work like that. Again:

I repeat [my question]: which numbered premise(s) in my argument do you contend are false, and why?

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

Whatever type you want to include/exclude. Don't you often divide people into groups of 'secularists' and 'non-secularists'? Are non-secularists a big part of that majority who you imagine to live in a cave?

A secularist is one who draws human meaning and purpose from society or the earth. A universalist in contrast draws meaning and purpose from the unity of universal structure. This implies that there is something limiting secularism. This division is natural

Two things: What makes you think you know me at all? What makes you think you know much of anything if you're in a cave?

I’ve experience that you generate a lot of negativity against some conception of Christianity. Negativity is a classic expression of the limitations of cave life

First of all I should clarify why humanity is trapped in Plato’s Cave. The being of Man is not unity but rather we are a plurality called the tripartite soul. The being of Man consists of an intellectual part, an emotional part, and a sensory part. They are held together through consciousness A normal human being would have a balanced soul in which the intellect leads the emotion while the senses are led by the emotions.

The human condition asserts that man lives upside down. Man is led by the senses. The emotions are led by the senses and the intellect supports the emotions. This absurd condition is only made tolerable through imagination taking the place of consciousness. Plato’s Cave is defined by the darkness of imagination.

I may know a lot of things but if I lack value, I lack the force to make use of it. The emotions don’t follow reason. I may know I exist in Plato’s cave but lack the force of will to profit from it. Acquired negative emotions prevent it.

Well you clearly have a need to imagine such a thing of others. You have no idea what other people are doing, nor why. Why wouldn't these stories that you tell be a result of the shadows on the wall of your cave (as you refer to it).

If something you say doesn't make sense, it's not because someone is attacking you based on their self-esteem -- rather, it's likely because it doesn't make sense to their perspective. Why wouldn't 'the divine' manifest through all? Why would 'the divine' need to manifest in any particular way?

How can you expect the divine to manifest in the imagination governing Plato’s Cave? There is no room for grace. Show me someone with a balance soul and control of their negative emotions and I will gladly listen to them. Such a person can through conscious contemplation receive help from above. But they are an extreme rarity.

How do you know about leaving the cave if you're in the cave? How do you know what other people are doing? How do you know that you're not misunderstanding what is going on? How is your opinion of what is going on for others more valid than what they know their own perspective is?

How can I know I am in prison? I shake the bars and try to leave. If I can’t then I must admit my situation. Most just believe prison life is normal.

So, you don't think you judge others when you claim to know what they're doing and why?

Why would it be reasonable to think that what you're 'learning' is any more useful or true than what other people are learning?

What makes you think you know how things should be?

If people are happy In prison, or as what Nietzsche called “wretched Contentment” why disturb the peace? I’ve learned by experience what happens to those disturbing the peace. My heart goes out to the rare ones seeking escape so as to become normal. I can learn from them.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, so, you're still not willing to defend your insane, unreasonable conception of justice...

Quite the opposite. I'm not willing to defend your insane, unreasonable proposition without you first proving you know what it is you're alleging. And I'm not willing to accept your definition of "justice" on faith, as if you even know what it means. I have no reason from you, so far, to think you do.

You launched the accusation. It's up to you to justify it.

[Harry Baird]

Again, the only question that matters:

I repeat [my question]: which numbered premise(s) in my argument do you contend are false, and why?

[Immanuel Can]

Again, the only question that matters:

Nope.

If your accusation has no meaning, then it's not important at all.

The numbered premise was 1. I already told you that. And the reason it's false is that you have no definition of "justice," and thus of what you're accusing God of failing to do.

Your accusation has no meaning until you show it does. And the most crucial question is, what is "justice"?

[Harry Baird]

The numbered premise was 1. I already told you that. And the reason it's false is that you have no definition of "justice," and thus of what you're accusing God of failing to do.

Ah. Something concrete. A contested premise. We make some sort of progress.

You seem to be contending that the (Christian) premise, numbered 1 in my argument, "God is fundamentally (essentially) loving and just" is false on my definition of justice, which you claim is overly vague or even non-existent, but, presumably, you do not contend that it is false on your conception of justice, because, in that case, you would be renouncing your faith, given that this is a key tenet of the faith - and, presumably, you do not (yet) wish to do that.

We haven't really made any progress then, because you (presumably) still hold premise #1 to be true on your own definition of justice.

The only remaining way[1] I can see then for you to try to defeat the argument (given your own definition of justice) is to contend that premise #3 is false: that, according to your conception of justice, it is just to condemn a person to eternal (infinite) torment for finite sins committed during a finite life.

The problem for you is that you have repeatedly failed to affirm as much, let alone to defend such an insane and unreasonable conception of justice. You continue, then, not to have challenged my argument in any meaningful way.

(By the way, I misunderstood what you meant when you originally told me that you reject the truth of premise #1, given my confusion over the dual use of "term" in that post).

[1] More strictly, you could challenge either of the other two remaining premises. It's just that premise #3 seems to be the most plausible one for you to challenge.

[Age]

What is 'a reality'?

That some of 'you', adult human beings fear death? If yes, then I do NOT think ANY one would disagree with this.

Or, is 'it',

That death is something to fear? If yes, then I KNOW 'you' are Wrong.


Are 'you' here saying that if someone FEARS some 'thing', then that by itself means that that 'one' has some 'courage'.


What 'religious' 'stuff', EXACTLY, do 'you' BELIEVE?

There are SO MANY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS, as well as YOUR VERY OWN INTERPRETATIONS, and MISINTERPRETATIONS.

For example 'you' STILL BELIEVE that God is a male gendered 'thing', correct?

And this particular 'religious' 'stuff' is SO ABSURD that to NOT even ALREADY KNOW that 'it' is a COMPLETE and UTTER MISINTERPRETATION makes one wonder about the SANITY of the one with THAT BELIEF.

Its understandable to take a stand against fear but its more to the experience thereof.

Who was, or is, supposedly 'taking a stand against fear', here?

The unknown experience, or for example should someone fear the experience of a tormenting insanity. Or extreme pain that’s unrelenting. These are all realities, correct?

Let us say that they were "all realities", this in NO way infers that there then has to be some sort of 'fear' associated with them.

On the male God thing, if one’s God is the Creator of all things made then surly what was made has been generated or produced formed and caused by said Creator, hence, fathered.

The word 'fathered' would refer to the male gendered one of a, particular, species only after that one had created or caused an offspring.


For surely it could also be said and argued; if one’s God is the Creator of all things made then surly what was made has been generated or produced formed and caused by said Creator, hence, Mothered, correct?

Or, if it only works one way here, then we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this', AS WELL. That is; if you are READY and OPEN to DISCUSSING 'this'.

Therefore, it would be correct to call the Creator Father or Father of all things, but the "Father" is a reconition of the reationship within and through Jesus Christ.

And, WHY, EXACTLY, would it, supposedly, NOT be correct to call the Creator, Mother, or the Mother of all things?

WHY is 'the "Father" a, supposed, recognition of the relationship within and through that just another human being called "jesus christ"?

How, EXACTLY, does the "Father" word work in relationship between, say, "jesus christ" and its Mother?

[Age]

Again, the only question that matters:

Nope.

If your accusation has no meaning, then it's not important at all.

The numbered premise was 1. I already told you that. And the reason it's false is that you have no definition of "justice," and thus of what you're accusing God of failing to do.

Your accusation has no meaning until you show it does. And the most crucial question is, what is "justice"?

WHY does it only relay on this ONE word ONLY?

Until you two start defining ALL of the words that you two are using here, then ALL of what you two are saying has, LITERALLY, NO meaning.

[Lacewing]

Are non-secularists a big part of that majority who you imagine to live in a cave?

A secularist is one who draws human meaning and purpose from society or the earth. A universalist in contrast draws meaning and purpose from the unity of universal structure. This implies that there is something limiting secularism. This division is natural

So, you don't want to answer the question. This implies that you show favor to non-secularists despite how much of the 'majority' they actually represent. And you like to speak of a 'minority' as if the whole world are secularists who are against the minority. It's a skewed story that glorifies a few and doesn't reflect broader truth.

Two things: What makes you think you know me at all? What makes you think you know much of anything if you're in a cave?

I’ve experience that you generate a lot of negativity against some conception of Christianity. Negativity is a classic expression of the limitations of cave life

Do you see yourself as generating a lot of negativity for things you think are corrupt and destructive? Is it really negative that I challenge the toxicity and absurdity in Christianity? I have also expressed appreciation for the good elements that Christianity offers -- such as good people doing good work, and providing inspiration and comfort if/when people need it. But there are both positive and negative elements in Christianity, and I think it's dangerous for the organization to have so much self-serving control, as well as such distorted/dishonest self-preservation. Intoxicated brainwashing makes many people incapable of thinking and moving for themselves beyond it. How can that be good?

Anything can be (and typically is) manipulated and corrupted by humans, and it's easy to see (for those who care to look honestly) how Christianity has been too. Defending that despite all to the contrary enables dangerous deception. Sincere challenges and honest answers help us gain a broader view and more truth. Those who are protecting their entangled identities seem incapable of perceiving anything greater.

I may know a lot of things but if I lack value, I lack the force to make use of it. The emotions don’t follow reason. I may know I exist in Plato’s cave but lack the force of will to profit from it. Acquired negative emotions prevent it.

Maybe this makes sense to you somehow, but your idea of value and how this all works is not shared by everyone, and that does not mean that you're right and other people are wrong. You find meaning from certain ideas that have resonated for you, just as other people find meaning from certain ideas that have resonated for them. Can you accept that it doesn't all work for all in a particular way that you imagine?

Why wouldn't 'the divine' manifest through all? Why would 'the divine' need to manifest in any particular way?

How can you expect the divine to manifest in the imagination governing Plato’s Cave? There is no room for grace. Show me someone with a balance soul and control of their negative emotions and I will gladly listen to them. Such a person can through conscious contemplation receive help from above. But they are an extreme rarity.

Can't you imagine that there is more to the divine than you imagine? Do you think the divine is absent from people who do bad things? People who are being bad, blind, or stupid often don't even realize it, as they think they are fully justified and correct to think and react as they do. Does the divine abandon them for not knowing any better?

Why do you think the divine is only manifested through certain qualities? How do you know how extensive grace is?

Judgments as to the limitations of where and how the divine is manifested are from the notions of men, and such notions are typically meant to serve and glorify an 'individual self' as right and good.

How can I know I am in prison? I shake the bars and try to leave. If I can’t then I must admit my situation. Most just believe prison life is normal.

I agree that many do not realize how much freedom and power they have. But the idea of a cave or a prison is just one model, and you tend to impose that on anyone who thinks differently than you. There are countless paths and ways that people use... and that is, surely, absolutely perfect. There's no reason to think that the divine is not represented -- even if we limited human beings don't quite understand all the reasons/perfection of it.

I’ve learned by experience...

We all learn all kinds of different things from each of our experiences. We have many magnificent journeys. Why would the divine be smaller than that, and restricted to only certain views?

I cannot say what works for another, but I can say what doesn't apply to me. And I can appreciate and accept that there is much more to the big picture than what any of us might claim to see or know individually. I challenge such claims that set the claimant above others, and those who claim to be associated with one true god or supreme awareness or 'a special few' which others are not. To me, that's absolutely ridiculous and it's reasonable to challenge it because why wouldn't we all be of the same stuff and accessing the same stuff and manifesting the same stuff? What makes people think they are uniquely separate, and why do they need to feel that way?

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to be contending that the (Christian) premise, numbered 1 in my argument, "God is fundamentally (essentially) loving and just" is false on my definition of justice, which you claim is overly vague or even non-existent,

"Seem"?

...but, presumably, you do not contend that it is false on your conception of justice,

I don't need to offer one, yet. I haven't declared anything based on such a term, so there's nothing for me to explain. You have. I just want to know what you think you mean by it, so I can end up talking about the same thing you are. Maybe what you think "justice" is, is the same as what I think; but maybe not. Either way, I need your definition before I can respond.

Whenever I need to make a statement about "justice," I'll happily tell you exactly what I mean.

We haven't really made any progress then,

Well, we can't, until you say what you mean when you allege that "justice" is at issue here.

So go ahead: where's your definition?

[Harry Baird]

...but, presumably, you do not contend that it is false on your conception of justice,

I don't need to offer one, yet.

You don't have to offer your definition of justice just yet, but you do need to confirm that, given your definition, you affirm that premise #1 is true.

So, do you affirm that on your conception of justice, premise #1 is true?

As for my own definition of justice, it's not especially relevant to the argument - the argument works with a range of conceptions of justice that are reasonable and sane, i.e., that don't stray into the crazy land of infinite punishment for finite transgressions.

[Immanuel Can]

...but, presumably, you do not contend that it is false on your conception of justice,

I don't need to offer one, yet.

You don't have to offer your definition of justice just yet, but you do need to confirm that, given your definition, you affirm that premise #1 is true.

I don't know whether or not your premise is "true." It would depend entirely on whether or not you meant anything when you said that God is not "just."

So where is your definition?

Or is the fact that you keep avoiding this simple task evidence that you had no idea what you were saying at all?

As for my own definition of justice, it's not especially relevant to the argument

Sorry...too funny.

Nothing ELSE is relevant to knowing what you said, Harry. If we can't even decode the words properly, you said nothing at all.