Christianity

[promethean75]

Yeah it's a protective sheathing if anything, and I doubt the religious convention itself would have evolved prior to the species having the technical capability of making clothing, however primitive. Ergo maybe, the natural function of the sheathing was no longer needed. And, at worst, might now produce personal hygiene issues for a small minority of the population subjects.

Again, no need to upgrade to defcon 4. And in fact Belinda was right earlier up. Uncircumscribed penises would have more average mass and could, in theory, produce greater vaginal stimulation due to the excessive movement of that additional skin during intercourse and very slight increase of girth in the mid section.

[iambiguous]

As with Henry, IC morphs into Mr. Snippet!

Which way do you want to be? Do you want to dogmatic or impotent? Because those are the choices you've given yourself.

I'm not dogmatic because I am the first to admit that my own points here are no less rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. Given the fact that, like you, "I" am but an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the vastness of "all there is". So, really, what are the odds that I, going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself, am even remotely close to a precise understanding of the "human condition" here on planet Earth.

In fact, it's only when I have noted this to all of the moral and political and spiritual objectivists [like you] that I've encountered down through the years that the "huffing and puffing" often commences. The last thing they want to believe is that their own One True Path may well be just an existential fabrication rooted in dasein.

Right?

"Impotent," then. Nothing you assert is more than a personal feeling, you say?

Again, the distinction between the Pope in the Vatican and the Christian God in Heaven. It's not just my "personal feeling" that the Pope resides in the Vatican. True, I'm not in the Vatican now myself to confirm his presence, but there are any number of others who can confirm precisely where he is now. On the other hand, here and now, I do personally feel that the Christian God is not in Heaven. But that feeling is predicated on the fact that neither you nor anyone else has provided me with substantive evidence able to convince that He is in fact there.

Then back to this:

Let's get this straight. Is he acknowledging that his own belief in the Christian God is just another existential leap of faith? Re say Kierkegaard, Pascal and others?

Or is he telling us that he knows the Christian God does in fact exist? That, unless others accept Jesus Christ as their savior, it won't go well for them at Judgment Day?

Again: what does he know with any degree of certainty here and what is he able to demonstrate that others can know with certainty in turn?

WITH SO MUCH AT STAKE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE GRAVE

Let him note for us what he construes to be the soundest proof that it is his God and not one of these...

Respond please.

And I am impotent only to the extent that what I believe "here and now" is true. After all, what can I possible do to change it? On the other hand, what I do believe "here and now" may not be true at all. How could I possibly know that for sure?

No, you can't believe it's "true" for anybody but yourself. It's not true for anybody else, because that would make it objective.

Over and over and over again: I'm considerably less interested in what others claim to believe is true about the Christian God and far more interested in what they can demonstrate to us that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true.

And it's absolutely, objectively, indisputably wrong to be "arrogant, authoritarian and dogmatic," as well. We have to believe that, too.

I don't get it. Many Christians will tell us that God's Commandments and His Word in the Bible are the basis for objective morality on this side of the grave. And, in turn, they tell us that unless we obey them we might burn for all of eternity in Hell on the other side.

How about IC? Does he agree?

And if that is true why wouldn't one be absolutely adamant in preaching Christianity? Isn't that precisely the basis for proselytizing, for becoming Christian missionaries? Souls themselves are at stake!!

But other religious denominations, while basically agreeing with that, insist that it is their own One True Path that will save your soul.

Why his path and not their path? Let him give us what he construes to be the best argument and evidence there is to bring the infidels around. And let him really go deeply introspective here, okay?

How about IC? Does he agree?

It wasn't addressed to me, but was part of a longer address to your perceived audience. I didn't feel it asked for a response from me, and it really didn't need one, because it was incorrect from its very premise. Christianity is not a religion of "commandments." It has some commandments, but, as good as they are, adherence to them is not the condition of salvation. That's one huge difference from what we call "religion."

You were the one who interjected here, not me.

But, okay, let's focus in on the Bible then. Do you believe it is the word of God as many Christians do? Do you believe that it is to be taken literally as many Christians do?

In other words, that the entire Bible itself is a Commandment from God.

And, again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, isn't that something all Christians should agree on?

And are you telling us that you yourself know what the "condition of salvation" is?

Please note it for us. Or, as with most other things, is the first condition that others must think exactly as you do regarding what the condition is?

And, just out of curiosity, what do you imagine the fate of Henry Quirk to be on Judgment Day? Will he or will he not have to renounce the Deist God and accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior?

And what of Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Shintos and Buddhists and all those many, many others who embrace the other denominations?

What of those who have never even heard of Christianity?

[Immanuel Can]

If you think chopping off your little baby's foreskin is like clipping his little nails then you are a stupid and cruel father.

You think you know about this?

You're imaginging things...very empathetic of you, no doubt, but unfortunately empathetic about what's going on in your own mind, not what's happening to the child.

Babies don't even remember it after the event, and afterward, have no bad effects at all. That's one heck of a long way from what Somalis do to their women.

Like I say: read the book, and you'll know.

You make my blood run cold.

Well wait until you read it. I promise you, you'll wonder why you ever troubled your head about circumcision before. I guarantee it.

[Immanuel Can]

"Impotent," then. Nothing you assert is more than a personal feeling, you say?

Again, the distinction between the Pope in the Vatican

That's an empirical question, not a moral one. Of course there are empirical facts: the issue is, are there any moral ones?

If your morals are only subjective, then they are impotent with regard to anybody else. There is no reason why something particular to only you and your perspective should be regarded as binding -- or even necessarily interesting -- to another human being.

Then back to this:

Is he acknowledging that his own belief in the Christian God is just another existential leap of faith?

Nope.

Or is he telling us that he knows the Christian God does in fact exist?

Of course.

That, unless others accept Jesus Christ as their savior, it won't go well for them at Judgment Day?

I'm just telling you exactly what the Bible tells you about that. What you do with it, well, that's up to you.

Respond please.

As above.

And I am impotent only to the extent that what I believe "here and now" is true. After all, what can I possible do to change it? On the other hand, what I do believe "here and now" may not be true at all. How could I possibly know that for sure?

No, you can't believe it's "true" for anybody but yourself. It's not true for anybody else, because that would make it objective.

Over and over and over again:

That's what one does when a claim is obviously, definitionally true. One reaffirms it, rather than abandoning it, when somebody complains.

Many Christians will tell us that God's Commandments and His Word in the Bible are the basis for objective morality on this side of the grave. And, in turn, they tell us that unless we obey them we might burn for all of eternity in Hell on the other side.

How about IC? Does he agree?

Answered in the previous message.

But other religious denominations, while basically agreeing with that,

They don't.

Do you believe it is the word of God as many Christians do?

Yes.

Do you believe that it is to be taken literally as many Christians do?

What do you mean by "literally"? Do you mean that a "literal" person can't recognize poetry or parable, even when the speaker explicitly says that's what they are? Does a "literalist" have to say that everything men did that is recorded therein is automatically thereby only actions approved by God?

Of course not.

But if you mean, "Is the Bible correct in all it affirms? " then I would be a literalist.

In other words, that the entire Bible itself is a Commandment from God.

If you ever read it, you'll know immediately that the Bible is much more than a set of commandments.

And are you telling us that you yourself know what the "condition of salvation" is?

I'm just telling you what the Bible says about it. Again, it's up to you what you do with that knowledge.

And, just out of curiosity, what do you imagine the fate of Henry Quirk to be on Judgment Day? Will he or will he not have to renounce the Deist God and accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior?

You're asking me to read Henry's mind. I don't do that.

And what of Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Shintos and Buddhists and all those many, many others who embrace the other denominations?

They all say essentially the same thing: that anybody who follows their system of belief is better off that somebody who doesn't. In that sense, all religions are exclusive. Because even those that purport to be inclusive insist the exclusive ones are wrong...so they are exclusive of the exclusive.

So that's not even unusual. All religions have a path they advocate. And the Bible says that, too. But it says this, about that:

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

What of those who have never even heard of Christianity?

That isn't you.

[promethean75]

"Of course there are empirical facts: the issue is, are there any moral ones?

If your morals are only subjective, then they are impotent with regard to anybody else."

Immanuus false dichtomous.

There can be empirical facts about morality long as they exist in descriptive statements. But prescriptive moral statements are just hyped up commands. You know the whole naturalistic and is/ought fallacy thing.

So objective morality exists do long as people share definitions for what they mean when they speak publicly and descriptively about human behavior.

Also look at it like this. You can't speak of moral qualia like you can about the qualia of the taste of tomato soup. Morality is not something that can be classed as an object of subjective experience that only one person can have. It's rather a category for a certain study of human behavioral habits in which descriptive and sometimes causal statements can be made about particular behaviors.

Another way to look at it is this. 'Objective' is conceptually related to truth, and value statements don't express truths, so they can't be subjective either. Like if abortion is wrong, it can't be wrong for just you. It wouldn't be a subjective truth only you knew. So it's either wrong, not wrong, of neither wrong nor right.

I choose the last because a statement like 'you suck baby killer for running an abortion clinic' expresses no facts other than as descriptions of implicit sentiment, preference and opinion about the physical procedure of abortion. The emotive equivalent to shouting 'boo abortion!!'

That statement has no truth value.

[uwot]

"Has it never occurred to you that the male of every species on the planet has a cover for their winky? If circumcision served any useful function, nature would have tried it."

Yes of course bruh I'm not saying uncircumscribed penises present any clear and present danger to the species like on the scale of an asteroid the size of Australia, a deadly epidemic, a war against china or even a reelection of trumpf.

Btw I say pseudo-scientific stuff I have absolutely no basis for all the time. It's called philosophy dude.

Well yeah, philosophy is partly about asking questions that can't be answered by science, until they can and become science. You can call that pseudo-scientific if you wish. For me proto or pre scientific works better, leaving pseudo-scientific for the stuff that people peddle in the absence of, or in contradiction to any evidence.

[phyllo]

I choose the last because a statement like 'you suck baby killer for running an abortion clinic' expresses no facts other than as descriptions of implicit sentiment, preference and opinion about the physical procedure of abortion. The emotive equivalent to shouting 'boo abortion!!'

That statement has no truth value.

The person who makes that statement believes it to be true and acts as if it is true.

Therefore, it is no different than a fact for him/her.

[henry quirk]

The beauty of it is in the irony of how much good will these Christians could have toward men while living by the principles of an utterly unworkable system of anarchism, and to be so innocently naive of this fact.

Actually, the principles they live by are Christian.

Religious text provides no economic theory for a society larger than a village. it gives no instruction for transactions larger than trading your camel for your neighbor's daughter.

Insofar as I'm aware: Christian Anarchism is silent on the subject of economics.

Karl Hess (not a Christian as far as I know, just an anarchist) said: In an anarchist world, of course, there would be thousands of different communities enough variety to accommodate everyone except someone who wanted power over others.

And Hennacy said of your own leanings: To change the world by bullets or ballots was a useless procedure. If the workers ever did get a majority of either, they would have the envy and greed in their hearts and would be chained by these as much as by the chains of the master class. And the State which they would like to call a Cooperative Commonwealth would be based on power; the state would not wither away but would grow.

Anarchists in general are content to let economics work themselves out, but -- as they abhor coercion -- the field is narrowed considerably. Your own marxist drivel doesn't make the cut.

[Immanuel Can]

There can be empirical facts about morality long as they exist in descriptive statements.

Not relevant.

An empirical claim would be, "Joe thinks murder is wrong." Yes, empirically, that's what he thinks. But that's just what Joe thinks.

An objective moral claim would be, "Murder is wrong, whether Joe knows it is or not."

So objective morality exists do long as people share definitions

No, that's still entirely subjective. "Joe and Francine think murder is wrong" is empirically true, perhaps; but whether what they think is objectively true or not is not established by the fact that they think it.

Morality is not something that can be classed as an object of subjective experience that only one person can have.

Iam has to think it is.

It's rather a category for a certain study of human behavioral habits in which descriptive and sometimes causal statements can be made about particular behaviors.

No, that's no help to the case at all.

"(Some) humans have a habit of thinking murder is wrong" is nowhere near equivalent to the claim, "Murder is objectively wrong."

Another way to look at it is this. 'Objective' is conceptually related to truth, and value statements don't express truths, so they can't be subjective either.

"Truths" are objective, obviously. But if value statements are subjective, then they aren't objective, and aren't "truths," by definition. Again, to say "Joe believes murder is wrong," is an objective statement about the state of Joe's subjectivity. But it's not a claim about the belief itself. It's not the same as "Murder is wrong." It's just a statement about Joe's beliefs.

Like if abortion is wrong, it can't be wrong for just you.

You mean that abortion would be objectively wrong.

It wouldn't be a subjective truth only you knew. So it's either wrong, not wrong, of neither wrong nor right

I think you have your terms backward. "Subjective" means that something is "not objective," that is, it's not something anybody else has to believe.

I choose the last because a statement like 'you suck baby killer for running an abortion clinic' expresses no facts other than as descriptions of implicit sentiment, preference and opinion about the physical procedure of abortion.

No, that's your assumption. You haven't shown it's the case, or done anything likely to show it's the case.

And the contrary case is, "Abortion is objectively wrong, whether Joe and Francine know it is." It's not the claim, "Abortion feels wrong to me, though not to Joe and Francine." That could be true, but doesn't address whether or not abortion IS wrong.

Anti-abortionists, like myself, hold that "Abortion is wrong" is always true, regardless of what some people choose to say. And we hold that their preferences, opinions and emotions have zero to do with whether or not it is. It's just plain wrong. End of story.

That's objective morality. Anything less, whether by an individual or group, is just subjective morality.

[Dubious]

Yeah it's a protective sheathing if anything, and I doubt the religious convention itself would have evolved prior to the species having the technical capability of making clothing, however primitive. Ergo maybe, the natural function of the sheathing was no longer needed. And, at worst, might now produce personal hygiene issues for a small minority of the population subjects.

It was a good cover to have in an ice age. It didn't need defrosting prior to usage!

[henry quirk]

Me...

Does, however, interpretation negate the text? Is there nuthin' of value there beyond interpretation? The text is, after all, a communique, a transmission from someone to someone. You may interpret, or adopt an interpretation, but the person on the other end of the transmission, don't you have some obligation to suss out what he's sayin'?

You...

The thing is you don't have persuade the writers that you have understood them; you only have to persuade yourself. A lot of the problems in the world are a direct result of different interpretations of the bible and other 'holy' texts. Some people cannot tolerate others disagreeing with their interpretation, because it means that others disagree with them.

I don't think that's an answer to my question:

the person on the other end of the transmission, don't you have some obligation to suss out what he's sayin'?

An email, a paper letter, these are links in a chain of communication, a back & forth where participants, if they're actually talkin' to one another, have some obligation to attend to the writer's meaning and intent.

It mighta been Kierkegaard who likened the Bible to a letter from God to the individual. Taken as such: a similar obligation exists to get it right (even if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, don't), yeah?

[phyllo]

An email, a paper letter, these are links in a chain of communication, a back & forth where participants, if they're actually talkin' to one another, have some obligation to attend to the writer's meaning and intent.

It mighta been Kierkegaard who likened the Bible to a letter from God to the individual. Taken as such: a similar obligation exists to get it right (even if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, don't), yeah?

You can't know that you got it right unless you get some feedback from the author.

[Immanuel Can]

It mighta been Kierkegaard who likened the Bible to a letter from God to the individual. Taken as such: a similar obligation exists to get it right (even if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, don't), yeah?

This is why Postmodernists have been so keen to declare "the death of the author."

What they really wanted was the death of the Author.

If authorial intent is "dead," as they say, then a text is whatever the recipient understands by it...or more commonly and truthfully, whatever the recipient wants to admit to other people he sees in the text, whether he actually sees that there or not.

The excuse for rejecting all authority is simply, "Well, that's not what I saw, when I 'interacted with the text.'"

But as you say, authors write with a purpose: and if they don't write what they write, nothing gets written at all. Thus, it can never be merely a matter of how the reader "interacts with the text": rather, it remains legitimate to ask, "Is what you're claiming you see in the text anywhere near what the text itself actually says and what they author was at pains to convey?"

In the Postmodernists' case, the author is not "dead." He's just being ignored.

[henry quirk]

An email, a paper letter, these are links in a chain of communication, a back & forth where participants, if they're actually talkin' to one another, have some obligation to attend to the writer's meaning and intent.

It mighta been Kierkegaard who likened the Bible to a letter from God to the individual. Taken as such: a similar obligation exists to get it right (even if thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, don't), yeah?

You can't know that you got it right unless you get some feedback from the author.

Christians say they do just that.

[phyllo]

Christians say they do just that.

People say lots of stuff. It's not necessarily true.