Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

It seems to me that when one does grasp that the Christian View is as much an attempt to describe a real event that impinged on human life in history, as it is the establishment of a final and absolute set of assertions about the effect of that event (the Advent and the sacrifice of Jesus), one will have gone a long way in understanding the adamancy of the Christian position. The Advent of Jesus Christ -- literally -- remodeled reality. It is portrayed as an event of total consequence, or irrevocable consequence really, but of veritable metaphysical consequence for the individual.

The event, the descent and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, opened up new possibilities that, in the Christian view, did not exist before the Event transpired. And the dogma of the Church involves setting out and explaining each and every advantage that was offered to the soul, and all these advantages depend on and spring out of Grace. Literally, a kingdom of death is seen as coming to a close and a new kingdom of life opens up.

So once one has been introduced to the *internal logic* of this event, and in Catholic terms once one has understood the liturgical function of reenactment, and if one has given one's *assent* to the meaning expressed, you could hardly turn away from it, and if you did turn away it would be the epitome of folly.

Explained in more direct terms, those who become Christians enter into a new life -- new possibilities of life on all levels but in a final sense to *everlasting life*. Whereas before this Event that avenue was not open (or if it was open it was in an extremely limited form). For this reason I say that one must examine, and understand, the metaphysical implication -- even if, as is certainly the case, it is not agreed with.

I have resolved to understand better the *internal logic* of Catholicism through reading The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Gihr. And for that reason -- it is definitely germane to tho on-going conversation -- I thought I'd indroduce the opening paragraphs that reveal the purpose of the Mass (the unbloody sacrifice), coming as it dies after an elaborate description of the purpose and effect of the bloody sacrifice on the cross.
The Unbloody Sacrifice of the Altar

ARTICLE FIRST

The Truth and Reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

The New Covenant of Grace requires a Perpetual Sacrifice -- and that the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.

I. The offering of the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross constitutes the conclusion and crowning of the earthly, as well as the foundation of the heavenly, activity and efficacy of Christ for the salvation of mankind. In the Sacrifice of the Cross all sacrifices prior to the coming of Christ have their fulfillment and by means of it have attained their end. “On the Cross there was but one sacrifice (hostia singularis) offered to God for the redemption of the world, and the death of Christ, the true sacrificial Lamb, announced so many centuries in advance, placed the children of promise in the liberty of faith. Then also was the New Covenant sealed, and the heirs of the eternal kingdom were inscribed with the blood of Christ. Then was evidently effected the transition from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many legal sacrifices to the one Sacrifice (a multis sacrificiis ad unam hostiam), in such a manner that, when the Lord gave up His spirit, the mystical veil which concealed the innermost part of the Temple and its holy mystery from view, was suddenly and violently rent in twain from top to bottom. Then truth abolished the figures (figuras veritas auferebat), and the proplecies became superfluous after their fulfillment.” The tearing asunder of the veil before the entrance to the Holy of Holies of the Old Dispensation was a sign that the Old Covenant ceased when the New and eternal Covenant of grace had been instituted in the blood of Christ. With the ending of the Old Covenant, the ancient sacrifices also ceased, because they had become useless.

2. For when the reality appears, the shadow vanishes; at the rising of the sun, night disappears. Umbram fugat veritas-Noctem lux eliminat. The Sacrifice of the Cross was a transient act, and as such it was accomplished but once, in one place-upon Golgotha-at a stated time-on that memorable and first Good Friday. Only a few personsstood at the foot of the Cross and assisted at this most affecting sacrificial drama; for all others the Sacrifice of the Cross is an historical fact: a thing of long ago and of the past. Now was there to be no further sacrifice after the death of Christ? Was Christendom to be without a perpetual sacrifice? Was Christ, the author and finisher of faith (Heb. I2,2), not to bequeath to His beloved Church a permanent sacrifice as a heritage? To say that Christ left the religion He founded without a perpetual sacrifice, is an assertion which of itself appears improbable and will later on be proved utterly false. But before we give proofs from the written and traditional word of God, from which it is as clear as the noonday sun that the Catholic Church possesses in the celebration of the Eucharist a permanent sacrifice, we will prove how exceedingly proper, yea, how necessary, in a certain sense, for the Christian religion and Church is a perpetual sacrifice, and that precisely the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 7:25 am ...have no idea why it would specifically have been advanced by secular skeptics in the first place knowing it would be impossible to "rationalize" within their worldview.
That's easy. Most people do not examine their own worldviews critically.

Like the lenses in their eyeglasses, they spend all their time looking through their worldview instead of at their worldview. And that's human nature. We all do that, unless we exercise a conscious effort to do otherwise; we all assume that what we think now is likely to be truth, and what others think that's different is bound to be wrong. So we focus on being critical of others, instead of reflective about ourselves.

A skeptic who reflects thoughtfully and systematically is going to find out exactly what we've discovered with regard to the theodicy problem: that it has no basis in skepticism. Rather, one has to be some sort of moralist, a believer in some sort of objective moral truth, if one is going to moralize about "evil." If one denies that morality or "evil" even exist, one cannot moralize anymore. So the skeptics believe two things that are actually denials of one another: first, that God (if He exists) would be culpable for evil, and second, that there's no such thing as evil.

The fault, in that case, is not yours or mine: it's in their own basic worldview.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:53 pm It seems to me that when one does grasp that the Christian View is as much an attempt to describe a real event that impinged on human life in history, as it is the establishment of a final and absolute set of assertions about the effect of that event (the Advent and the sacrifice of Jesus), one will have gone a long way in understanding the adamancy of the Christian position. The Advent of Jesus Christ -- literally -- remodeled reality. It is portrayed as an event of total consequence, or irrevocable consequence really, but of veritable metaphysical consequence for the individual.
Note: I might have used a different word rather than impinge which has come to mean trespass, etc. But I do mean it in the original sense:
[Latin impingere : in-, against; see in-2 + pangere, to fasten; see pag- in Indo-European roots.]
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

attofishpi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:47 pm
Yes, as b4 the 'objective' bit attribute to iambiguous.

..what about morality, if God exists or doesn't - our morality remains the same, no?
Plenty of religious people think not. They think morality comes from God alone and without God there's no point to morality. I disagree of course, interesting to see you disagree with that as well.
You state U R on the fence (not good for the bollocks btw, let me help you as the good Christian that I am :mrgreen: ).
Yeah it's a strange one for me. I sort of rearrange my thoughts one way and objective morality makes sense and I rearrange my thoughts another way and it stops making sense. It doesn't have a stable way of making sense to me, where I intuitively understand that it's the case. I have to struggle to put my mind in one way or another. Perhaps there's a sequence of words out there that would allow me to understand it without the struggle, but I haven't found them yet.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:06 pm
attofishpi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:47 pm
Yes, as b4 the 'objective' bit attribute to iambiguous.

..what about morality, if God exists or doesn't - our morality remains the same, no?
Plenty of religious people think not. They think morality comes from God alone and without God there's no point to morality. I disagree of course, interesting to see you disagree with that as well.
You state U R on the fence (not good for the bollocks btw, let me help you as the good Christian that I am :mrgreen: ).
Yeah it's a strange one for me. I sort of rearrange my thoughts one way and objective morality makes sense and I rearrange my thoughts another way and it stops making sense. It doesn't have a stable way of making sense to me, where I intuitively understand that it's the case. I have to struggle to put my mind in one way or another. Perhaps there's a sequence of words out there that would allow me to understand it without the struggle, but I haven't found them yet.
How does this fit?

Acts of morality are always subjective.
Acts of immorality CAN be objective.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:06 pm
attofishpi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:47 pm
Yes, as b4 the 'objective' bit attribute to iambiguous.

..what about morality, if God exists or doesn't - our morality remains the same, no?
Plenty of religious people think not. They think morality comes from God alone and without God there's no point to morality.
It's not that, actually. There's actually nothing at all religious about that conclusion.

A completely Atheistic person, just thinking carefully, systematically, logically about his own claims, and honouring his own worldview, is bound to arrive at exactly the same conclusion. He's bound to think that morality is nothing but either a human construct of some kind, or an immaterial and insubstantial gloss on what are essentially materialist phenomena. There's really nothing else for him to think.

This is why skeptics can't provide any objective account of "evil." And while they claim that no such objective property exists, at the same time, they want to allege that if there were a God, He would have to be answerable for the existence of "evil." And, at the same time, they freely and irrationally name things they observe as objectively "evil" -- you'll find them pointing to things like slavery, or rape, or violence (or even earthquakes and plagues), and asking, "How could you be so evil as not to recognize those things as evil?" :shock:

So they use a word they have to believe has no objective reality, no grounding in fact, only a superficial appearance in the realm of arbitrarily-assigned human or social values. And this incoherence comes entirely from the profound inconsistencies in their own thinking, not at all from any religious perspective at all.

They could discover exactly the same thing if they were sitting in a room by themselves, and actually thought about their worldview.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2580
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

attofishpi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:21 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:06 pm
attofishpi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:47 pm
Yes, as b4 the 'objective' bit attribute to iambiguous.

..what about morality, if God exists or doesn't - our morality remains the same, no?
Plenty of religious people think not. They think morality comes from God alone and without God there's no point to morality. I disagree of course, interesting to see you disagree with that as well.
You state U R on the fence (not good for the bollocks btw, let me help you as the good Christian that I am :mrgreen: ).
Yeah it's a strange one for me. I sort of rearrange my thoughts one way and objective morality makes sense and I rearrange my thoughts another way and it stops making sense. It doesn't have a stable way of making sense to me, where I intuitively understand that it's the case. I have to struggle to put my mind in one way or another. Perhaps there's a sequence of words out there that would allow me to understand it without the struggle, but I haven't found them yet.
How does this fit?

Acts of morality are always subjective.
Acts of immorality CAN be objective.
You tell me. How did you come to those ideas? Do you think they're true, and if so why?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:25 pmSo they use a word they have to believe has no objective reality, no grounding in fact, only a superficial appearance in the realm of arbitrarily-assigned human or social values. And this incoherence comes entirely from the profound inconsistencies in their own thinking, not at all from any religious perspective at all.
There are fantastic inconsistencies in all systems of thought, between differing ones, and quite simply in life here in all senses, and just as someone trying to make sense of things without recurring to elaborate theological mythologies will naturally encounter or stumble over “inconsistencies”, the thing about your evangel, esteemed IC, is that it itself is rife with radical inconsistencies. But you will not admit to it!

Those who notice these inconsistencies and who honestly feel the Christian perspective is more flaw-ridden (more inconsistent) than the one they seek to define, oppose your theodicy — ridicule it as absurd — which it certainly is when literally based on an absurd mythic story.

I have tried to illustrate that the Christian metaphysic and belief are choices one makes. Faith is a resolute choice and it was never supposed to be rational. You however pretend it is rational. To choose faith despite all (logical) opposition is what a Christian actually does. And I think it is what you have done as well.

It is for this reason that you can leap over those inconsistencies in your own system of belief and they do not affect your evangelism one way or the other.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:25 pmSo they use a word they have to believe has no objective reality, no grounding in fact, only a superficial appearance in the realm of arbitrarily-assigned human or social values. And this incoherence comes entirely from the profound inconsistencies in their own thinking, not at all from any religious perspective at all.
There are fantastic inconsistencies in all systems of thought...
Human beings are often inconsistent. But systems of thought are valued for their consistency. That's logic. That's reason. That's sound philosophy. That's good sense.

And that's what the skeptic purports to rely on: the alleged "inconsistency" between the idea of God and the idea of "evil." So he acknowledges that consistency is a cardinal virtue of truth. However, the skeptic doesn't just disbelieve in the existence of the God he accuses, but also of any objective grounds for the "evil" he alleges. So he falls afoul of his own appeal to the rightness of consistency.

So he, the skeptic, is the inconsistent one. At least the Theist can acknowledge the theodicy problem, since he grounds the existence of "evil" in the objective fact of God's existence. The skeptic may allege the Theist is simply factually wrong; but he can't charge the Theist's belief with rational incoherence, as we can the skeptic's own allegation.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:25 pm This is why skeptics can't provide any objective account of "evil." And while they claim that no such objective property exists, at the same time, they want to allege that if there were a God, He would have to be answerable for the existence of "evil." And, at the same time, they freely and irrationally name things they observe as objectively "evil" -- you'll find them pointing to things like slavery, or rape, or violence (or even earthquakes and plagues), and asking, "How could you be so evil as not to recognize those things as evil?" :shock:
Yet you have clearly pointed the way and solved the conflict: stop using the word evil and simply say really really bad, undesirable, necessary to avoid, etc.

A true skeptic of the Christian picture can do quite well through this semantic switch. And you make this clear.

The skeptics you refer to, seek arguments that function, conversationally, to undermine a Christian’s logical inconsistency. It works extremely well.

Actually, if there were a Christian-like god he would necessarily have to be far more directly involved in ordering the earthly world of man. Christians deal in a god-supposition and a god-potency that, in truth, they do not actually believe in, and which is not demonstrable.

The Christian god is itself a big bundle of unsolvable inconsistencies.

That is what those skeptic secularists argue against, with greater or lesser success.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:30 pm Human beings are often inconsistent. But systems of thought are valued for their consistency. That's logic. That's reason. That's sound philosophy. That's good sense.
Man, you’ve really been hoodwinked!

The core of your personal errors, I submit, is to be located here.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:30 pm So he, the skeptic, is the inconsistent one. At least the Theist can acknowledge the theodicy problem, since he grounds the existence of "evil" in the objective fact of God's existence. The skeptic may allege the Theist is simply factually wrong; but he can't charge the Theist's belief with rational incoherence, as we can the skeptic's own allegation.
The “theodicy problem” derives from specific theological convictions, based in mythological story.

The skeptic rejects the mythological story and thus ::: poof! ::: the theological problem is no longer a problem.

That leaves the skeptic with a vast and new set of problems however. How will man get along without the so-called truth-solutions derived from mythological tales infused with metaphysical values?

Immanuel: now is the time for you to subscribe to my Ten Week Email Solve-all-metaphysical-problems Course! Results are guaranteed!
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 9:33 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 9:30 am Since the English, many of whom I respect in this field of philosophy are yawning their way out of bed.

Can any of you have the decency to point out where in my statement above I am in some way of flawed logic? Otherwise, at least confirm I have made a reasonable statement that should not be mocked as mere entertainment?
Don't expect direct engagement with iambiguous, his theoretical techniques have been catalogued (by at least two different people) and very rarely is he capable of just honestly trading ideas and talking about them.
attofishpi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 9:30 am Just because atheists consider we are no other than animals with more intelligence - not created by an almighty - does not mean that humans, having such intelligence and social structures cannot be objective about moral code, and define what we consider is or is not evil.
Plenty of atheists agree with you!

I'm not one of them, I'm... well, I'm a fence sitter at the moment in regards to objective morality. I find myself swaying to one side or the other often.
Yo, FJ!

How about YOUR soul? Don't YOU want it to be saved? And if IC can provide YOU with a link to that video and YOU are truly convinced to accept Jesus Christ as YOUR personal savior, finding objective morality through Him, I will be more convinced to watch the entire batch of 16 videos as well if that will save MY soul.

So, please, by all means, run the point I raised to IC here...
iambiguous wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 12:57 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:47 pm
iambiguous wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 11:13 pm Isn't he interested in saving souls? Shouldn't he be going everywhere that he can think of to make these videos known to the world?
Hey, you have them. I gave them all to you. That you don't want to watch them is nothing I can change.

But we all answer for what we decide to do. One thing you'll not be saying, eventually, is "Nobody ever gave me a chance to know."

And that's enough. As Locke said, people cannot be "compelled to Heaven." They choose what they get.

Choose carefully.
Note to others:

Please explain to me how and why this is not completely ridiculous.

Forget about me. He has these videos that he is convinced offers evidence that the Christian God resides in Heaven. He is convinced the evidence is so strong that it enabled him to jettison a Kierkegaardian leap of faith to God or to place a Pascalian wager. Instead, the videos were so powerful he is now able to believe that in fact if others watch them, they too will surely know that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

So why for the sake of others, is he unwilling to link us to the video he is convinced offers the most compelling proof of the Christian God's existence.

He wants others to choose carefully but he refuses to provide them with any concrete evidence...corroborative proof that will actually establish the incentive for them to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. And to achieve salvation for their very soul on Judgment Day.

Would anyone else here who had such hard evidence for the existence of their own God not bring it to our attention?

How can all if this not indicate instead that even he knows the evidence is such that a leap of faith or a wager would still be required.
...by him.

Then we can sweep my alleged "theoretical techniques" under the philosophical rug and proselytize together for Jesus Christ!!

And not just up in the spiritual clouds either. :wink:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:25 pm This is why skeptics can't provide any objective account of "evil." And while they claim that no such objective property exists, at the same time, they want to allege that if there were a God, He would have to be answerable for the existence of "evil." And, at the same time, they freely and irrationally name things they observe as objectively "evil" -- you'll find them pointing to things like slavery, or rape, or violence (or even earthquakes and plagues), and asking, "How could you be so evil as not to recognize those things as evil?" :shock:
Yet you have clearly pointed the way and solved the conflict: stop using the word evil and simply say really really bad, undesirable, necessary to avoid, etc.
:D It's hilarious how you try to "make" me to have said things I simply never said and never would.

No, the truth is the opposite: no matter what synonym you sub in for "evil," be it "really bad," or "undesirable" or whatever, you're resorting to value-laden and moralizing terms. You might as well just say "evil." In all cases, the skeptic is just saying exactly the same thing -- that there's nothing intrinsically, objectively or universally "bad" or whatever.

But absent the justification of a value-laden term as objectively obligatory, whatever the term is, the skeptic is still making the same mistake, and the theodicy problem is still dead: nothing is gained by rephrasing it as, "How could God allow undesirable things," or "How could God allow really bad things?" The objector still has to justify the objective existence of "really bad" or "undesirable"...which he still has to insist are merely subjective, personal or social, and relative.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:35 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:30 pm Human beings are often inconsistent. But systems of thought are valued for their consistency. That's logic. That's reason. That's sound philosophy. That's good sense.
Man, you’ve really been hoodwinked!

The core of your personal errors, I submit, is to be located here.
So you embrace irrationality, illogic, and unsystematic belief systems? Because that's the only alternative to being consistent, logical, rational, sound and philosophical.
Post Reply