Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Christianity

Post by Walker »

Nick_A wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 2:28 am 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
What I’ve gathered from hearing cynical entreaties to explain the way of things from a particular point of view, or tradition, or custom, or religion, is that folks don’t necessarily have a visceral recoil from Christianity, but rather, from proselytizing of any sort … even proselytizing that is encouraged within the context of a philosophy forum, as a way of explanation.

The more relentless the focus of explaining how and why, the more annoying the intrusion upon what’s deemed by secularists to be a private affair.

However, sincere proselytizing shares joy, happiness, and the perceived causes of such, and the act makes perfect sense when distilled through the filters of generosity and understanding, ‘specially in the face of suffering. It comes from a place that sees the cure and the bandages, but those who take offense of the unsolicited offering say, “Nobody knows the troubles I’ve seen.”

For the inspired Christian the cup runneth over. Too much happiness for one body.

Conditions, which include folks and/or a cultural milieu, can define such sincere happiness right into crackpottery.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 3:04 pm 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.
And every time you say it, you lapse again into the ad hominem error.

The ad hominem does not have to be rude. That's its least important feature. It's real problem is that it is irrelevant. :shock:

Get that? It just never constitutes any part of the argument. It's off topic, empty, devoid of point. It never does anything to advance the argument.

Slow down and think. You'll realize that's right.

So far our conversation looks like this:

AJ: Christianity is....etc.
IC: What's your definition of Christianity?
AJ: Culture, Catholicism, Medievalism, Europe, civilization...
IC: Your definition isn't any good.
AJ: Yeah? Well you're...a bigot...narrow...exclusionary...literalist...fundamentalist...closed minded...etc.
IC: Your definition is still wrong.
AJ: How dare you dodge my insults! Now you're a bigot...narrow....closted minded...judgmental...etc.
IC: I can prove your definition is wrong.
AJ: Well, now you're a bigot...narrrow...exclusionary...evasive...closed minded...etc.
IC: How can you defend your definition against the facts of things like the Inquisition's incompatibility with the teachings of Christ?
AJ: I'm not answering that! You're a bigot...narrow...exclusionary...a bullshitter...etc.


And it's getting awfully boring. And I'm not at all offended...or even impressed...so again, there you miss your guess.

I would just add that if you don't have a theory worth defending, I guess that explains why you can't defend it.
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.
Well, you're wrong...again. :lol: No, it's exactly what I think is the case.

But being wrong...you must be getting used to it by now. You're too thin-skinned about your theory, and too prone to think that factual or logical claims are the same as throwing mud pies. And since you choose, rather irrelevantly, to dismiss my claims by way of the ad hom, I can't help you out at all. Your theory is what it is.

Have fun.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Trust me. If IC or any other Christian here can provide me with an answer that includes demonstrable proof that their God does in fact reside in Heaven...evidence on par with establishing that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican...see if I won't be satisfied with their answer.
phyllo wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:29 pm I have no reason to believe that you would be satisfied with their answer.
Are you kidding me?! Suppose someone was able to provide us with definitive proof that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. The news and the evidence sweeps the theological, philosophical and scientific community. It's all anyone talks about around the globe. The Christian God Himself confirms it!

Though, sure, until that actually happens, you can insist I would not be satisfied with any answers in the interim.
Yep, that's what I argued. Is there anyone here who would doubt the existence of the Christian God if this were to actually happen?!!
phyllo wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:29 pm Yes, that would remove a lot of doubt.

However, that was not the point that was being raised.

After talking to you for a while and answering your questions, people start to realize that you seem to reject all answers and you don't even have much interest in their answers.
In regard to this thread, however, it's not answers that interest me the most. It's the capacity of someone to demonstrate that their answer is in fact the correct one...if the question revolves around "how do we know for a fact that the Christian God does reside in Heaven?"

And that is the case because, with morality at stake on this side of the grave, and immortality and salvation at stake on the other side, and dozens and dozens of religious and spiritual dogmas all claiming to be the One True Path out there from which to choose, what could possibly be more important than pinning down the correct answer?!!
phyllo wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:29 pm So the natural question is ... what can anyone say that you would find adequate or satisfying?

Your reply is eye-opening. Nothing that a human can say is sufficient for you.
And around and arond we go. It's not what people can tell me about the existence of the Christian God in Heaven, but what they can demonstrate to me such that I then go around telling others the same thing. Why? Because there is demonstrable proof that it is true.

After all, in the either/or world, this is the way things unfold all the time. People tell us things about the material world around us. Sometimes we are not certain if it is true. Others then are either able to establish that it is or they aren't.

John says that Pope Francis is visiting our city. Is this true? Can we establish that it is? John says that Pope Francis "represents a direct line back to Jesus". Is this true? Can we establish that it is?
Yet here's phyllo -- aka larry -- arguing that this is somehow an example of him nailing me.

Though, sure, if you think this really is a "gotcha!" moment for him, please explain why.
phyllo wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:29 pm I'm not doing this to "nail you". I'm doing it to make people on this forum aware of what they are getting into when they enter into a discussion with you. Specifically when they try to answer your four questions.
Well, let's just say that you have your subjective, rooted existentially in dasein rendition of our exchanges over the years and I have mine. Then others here rooted the same can decide for themselves.

Note to others:

For reasons I have never been able to grasp, phyllo believes in an objective morality linked somehow to...God? So, sure, given a particular set of circumstance, by all means, see if you can figure out what the hell he's thinking here.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Trust me. If IC or any other Christian here can provide me with an answer that includes demonstrable proof that their God does in fact reside in Heaven...evidence on par with establishing that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican...see if I won't be satisfied with their answer.
Nick_A wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 1:08 am You seem to be describing Christendom rather then Christianity.
Describe such distinctions however you wish. Just demonstrate to me that in fact the Christian God does exist. Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, what could possibly be more important than establishing which of these religious/spiritual paths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...is the One True Path to morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then?
Nick_A wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 1:08 am The Christian God is not the Old Testament personal God. The Christian God is the ineffable source described as the ONE by Plotinus. The influence of Jewish nationalism and having become the religion of Rome drove Christianity underground and devolved Christianity into Christendom which is a religion of power rather than a religion of slaves to the human condition. The purpose of Christianity is to experience the way out in order to become human.

I would rather discuss Christianity and its purpose rather than arguing interpretations of Christendom with those needing a religion of power.
Well, I myself would rather discuss the Christian God and religion in an excahnge that revolves around these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

But that's just me, my own existential focus.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Nick_A wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:18 am

Christian rebirth or its purpose is to enable conscious evolution with the help from the Spirit into a higher quality of being. This is freedom from the meaninglessness of the earth into the quality of being in which human meaning and purpose exists.

1 Corinthians 15
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Paul is speaking of rebirth into a higher quality of being.
If it's only Christian rebirth, then it's only one presupposed by Christians. What about everyone else! Shouldn't rebirth be a fact applicable to everyone regardless of their religious or philosophical views or even if they haven't any. Am I required to believe and only then will I have it? If rebirth is some kind of cosmic recycling what's the consolation or meaning in that!
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:50 am
Dubious wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 5:07 am ...DEAD END.
You through yet? 8)
...when I want to be. The problem is, you're an endless fount of inspiration when it comes to critiquing your posts that not to do it requires a preponderance of will power...but I'm weak. :oops:
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: Christianity

Post by phyllo »

Trust me. If IC or any other Christian here can provide me with an answer that includes demonstrable proof that their God does in fact reside in Heaven...evidence on par with establishing that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican...see if I won't be satisfied with their answer.
phyllo wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:29 pm
I have no reason to believe that you would be satisfied with their answer.
Are you kidding me?! Suppose someone was able to provide us with definitive proof that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. The news and the evidence sweeps the theological, philosophical and scientific community. It's all anyone talks about around the globe. The Christian God Himself confirms it!

Though, sure, until that actually happens, you can insist I would not be satisfied with any answers in the interim.
You have been asked at least three times (that I remember) what would be a demonstration of the existence of God.

Each time you replied in the same way : God would have make a personal appearance to everyone in the world.

This is your consistent answer. It's not like you were distracted or in a mood and you just brushed someone off.

A personal appearance is the only "definitive proof" that you will admit.
And around and arond we go. It's not what people can tell me about the existence of the Christian God in Heaven, but what they can demonstrate to me such that I then go around telling others the same thing. Why? Because there is demonstrable proof that it is true.

After all, in the either/or world, this is the way things unfold all the time. People tell us things about the material world around us. Sometimes we are not certain if it is true. Others then are either able to establish that it is or they aren't.

John says that Pope Francis is visiting our city. Is this true? Can we establish that it is? John says that Pope Francis "represents a direct line back to Jesus". Is this true? Can we establish that it is?
You have closed the door to any demonstration by any human being.

You can't admit it to yourself.

Then back to this :
Well, I myself would rather discuss the Christian God and religion in an excahnge that revolves around these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
Tell me your answer to 1] so that I can reject it.

:idea: Enough of this nonsense. :twisted:
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 5:55 pmAnd every time you say it, you lapse again into the ad hominem error.

The ad hominem does not have to be rude. That's its least important feature. It's real problem is that it is irrelevant. :shock:

Get that? It just never constitutes any part of the argument. It's off topic, empty, devoid of point. It never does anything to advance the argument.

Slow down and think. You'll realize that's right.

So far our conversation looks like this:
You've got it wrong. The ad hominem error is an attack on the person who holds the idea, as a person. I am not interested in you as a person, I am interested in the ideas you have and the context of your existence, which help illuminate the ideas you hold, and in your case certainly your 'apologetic mission' as a Christian evangelist on a philosophy forum. That is why a discussion of your position within Non-denominational Protestantism is relevant, not ad hominem.

There has been no underhanded, nor even diversionary, use of ad hominem.

(The term ad hominem was brought up by you as a way to deflect incisive comments. You do this so that you avoid and side-step the genuine points made. As well a way to avoid dealing with the sort of complaint people bring against you all the time. True, they point out a defect of character (which is how I see it as well) but it also determines your style of argument which is a sham. Once one has seen that your entire argument takes place within a sham
sham (ʃæm)
n
1. anything that is not what it purports or appears to be
2. something false, fake, or fictitious that purports to be genuine
3. a person who pretends to be something other than he is
The issue is that those who are sincere can no longer interact with you. And that is why I say that I think you are fundamentally dishonest. It is not an observation that I make lightly. You bring to an end the possibility of conversation, and further conversation, because you are invested in the defect.

And I am just clarifying that this is where we stand.

Your lecturing of me ("Slow down and think. You'll realize that's right"), and of everyone who complains about your methods of conversation, is simply a front so that you do not have to deal with the content of ideas that are presented to you. It provokes contempt. I think that you engage in this because when someone reacts to you you can then say "They engaged in ad hominem" and then you have a way out of confronting the issues they bring to your attention.

What is the origin of this dishonesty? That is the question that must be answered. It is not ad hominem to ask Why does this man carry on in this way? It becomes a necessary question. Many people ask this of those who are invested, without introspection, in fanatic religious postures.

You falsely assert that you are just dealing in ideas, and it is true indeed that ideas can always be discussed. But you cannot discuss ideas, not honestly, because you are locked within an evangelist's posture.

It seems that once one realizes this conversation becomes futile. I do not ultimately know what to do with these thoughts and realizations but as I have said I am just getting things worked out as I go along.

I cannot imagine a more dishonest, and skewed, representation of what I have talked about over time. By summarizing it in this way you have transformed it into what you wish it to be. Not just partly but completely.
AJ: Christianity is....etc.
IC: What's your definition of Christianity?
AJ: Culture, Catholicism, Medievalism, Europe, civilization...
IC: Your definition isn't any good.
AJ: Yeah? Well you're...a bigot...narrow...exclusionary...literalist...fundamentalist...closed minded...etc.
IC: Your definition is still wrong.
AJ: How dare you dodge my insults! Now you're a bigot...narrow....closted minded...judgmental...etc.
IC: I can prove your definition is wrong.
AJ: Well, now you're a bigot...narrrow...exclusionary...evasive...closed minded...etc.
IC: How can you defend your definition against the facts of things like the Inquisition's incompatibility with the teachings of Christ?
AJ: I'm not answering that! You're a bigot...narrow...exclusionary...a bullshitter...etc.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Trust me. If IC or any other Christian here can provide me with an answer that includes demonstrable proof that their God does in fact reside in Heaven...evidence on par with establishing that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican...see if I won't be satisfied with their answer.
phyllo wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 8:29 pm
I have no reason to believe that you would be satisfied with their answer.
Are you kidding me?! Suppose someone was able to provide us with definitive proof that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. The news and the evidence sweeps the theological, philosophical and scientific community. It's all anyone talks about around the globe. The Christian God Himself confirms it!

Though, sure, until that actually happens, you can insist I would not be satisfied with any answers in the interim.
phyllo wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:09 pm You have been asked at least three times (that I remember) what would be a demonstration of the existence of God.

Each time you replied in the same way : God would have make a personal appearance to everyone in the world.

This is your consistent answer. It's not like you were distracted or in a mood and you just brushed someone off.

A personal appearance is the only "definitive proof" that you will admit.
No, I argued that I would be open to proof in the existence of the Christian God in Heaven on par with proof that the Pope resides in the Vatican. Though God confirming it would be the clincher of course.

And all I can do here is to come back over and over and over again to the enormity of what is at stake -- morality here and now, immortality and salvation there and then -- in establishing this.

The part that you just completely ignore. Others here have their own answers. Their own existential leaps of faith, their own wagers. It's just that some of them appear [to me] to go beyond that. They become fulminating, fanatical objectivists...it is their God and their God alone that is the One True Path. And the proof that they provide in order to establish it? The simple fact that they believe it! But not content to keep it there, however, they also embrace moral and political value judgments that they insist all others must embrace or be thought of as, among other things, "dumb motherfuckers".
And around and around we go. It's not what people can tell me about the existence of the Christian God in Heaven, but what they can demonstrate to me such that I then go around telling others the same thing. Why? Because there is demonstrable proof that it is true.

After all, in the either/or world, this is the way things unfold all the time. People tell us things about the material world around us. Sometimes we are not certain if it is true. Others then are either able to establish that it is or they aren't.

John says that Pope Francis is visiting our city. Is this true? Can we establish that it is? John says that Pope Francis "represents a direct line back to Jesus". Is this true? Can we establish that it is?
phyllo wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:09 pm You have closed the door to any demonstration by any human being.

You can't admit it to yourself.
And this must be true because you believe it is.

Come on, if the question revolves around whether the Pope is visiting Baltimore today, I suspect that it can be rather easily established that this is not the case.

As for demonstrating that in fact he represents a direct line back to Jesus Christ, what else is there to entertain in the interim but the proof of mere mortals? But for you to simply insist that I would automatically dismiss all such evidence from mere mortals is just part and parcel of your approach here. There's what you believe and that's that.
Well, I myself would rather discuss the Christian God and religion in an exchange that revolves around these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
phyllo wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:09 pm Tell me your answer to 1] so that I can reject it.
Same thing. This is what you believe, so that makes it true.
larry wrote: :idea: Enough of this nonsense. :twisted:
Note to others.

This is phyllo in Stooge mode.

Sometimes I just drive him up the wall with questions he simply ignores or with points he hasn't a clue regarding how to respond to. Or he makes the exchange all about me personally instead of addressing the questions and the points I raise.

Now, I have my suspicions as to why he switches over to "retort mode".

My questions and my points threaten his own precious Self and/or Soul. His "comfort and consolation" have in fact taken a few hits over the years. So, from time to time, he comes after me as he does here.

Well, unless of course I'm wrong.
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: Christianity

Post by phyllo »

Public service message delivered :!:

I'm not posting anything else in this thread.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

iambiguous wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:46 pm
Trust me. If IC or any other Christian here can provide me with an answer that includes demonstrable proof that their God does in fact reside in Heaven...evidence on par with establishing that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican...see if I won't be satisfied with their answer.
Nick_A wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 1:08 am You seem to be describing Christendom rather then Christianity.
Describe such distinctions however you wish. Just demonstrate to me that in fact the Christian God does exist. Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, what could possibly be more important than establishing which of these religious/spiritual paths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...is the One True Path to morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then?
Nick_A wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 1:08 am The Christian God is not the Old Testament personal God. The Christian God is the ineffable source described as the ONE by Plotinus. The influence of Jewish nationalism and having become the religion of Rome drove Christianity underground and devolved Christianity into Christendom which is a religion of power rather than a religion of slaves to the human condition. The purpose of Christianity is to experience the way out in order to become human.

I would rather discuss Christianity and its purpose rather than arguing interpretations of Christendom with those needing a religion of power.
Well, I myself would rather discuss the Christian God and religion in an excahnge that revolves around these four factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

But that's just me, my own existential focus.
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path

If you understand why the ONE cannot be proven by discursive thought, you are closer to the truth. God IS while creation follows the process of existence. Can you sense the difference? Here is what I know of the ONE

https://iep.utm.edu/plotinus/#SH2a
a. The One
The ‘concept’ of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, ‘the One,’ is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its ‘power’ (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a ‘foundation’ (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The ‘power’ of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the ‘manifestation’ of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This ‘power,’ then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual ‘vision’ of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the ‘source’ of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility — or active making-possible — of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the ‘generative power’ of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.); for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents — that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this ‘stanchion,’ is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the ‘stanchion,’ the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.). This ‘stanchion’ or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.

Christianity is not about the ONE or God if you prefer; the source of creation. Christianity is about the Christ and the significance of the Cross within creation. Yet people want to argue about our ineffable source with the discursive mind which is just foolish.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:55 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 5:55 pmAnd every time you say it, you lapse again into the ad hominem error.

The ad hominem does not have to be rude. That's its least important feature. It's real problem is that it is irrelevant. :shock:

Get that? It just never constitutes any part of the argument. It's off topic, empty, devoid of point. It never does anything to advance the argument.

Slow down and think. You'll realize that's right.

So far our conversation looks like this:
The ad hominem error is an attack on the person who holds the idea, as a person.
Yep. So why are you constantly going back to questions of who I am, not what I propose to you?
There has been no underhanded, nor even diversionary, use of ad hominem.
Then don't use it at all. It's irrelevant in all cases.
The issue is that those who are sincere can no longer interact with you.

:D
Your lecturing of me ("Slow down and think. You'll realize that's right"), and of everyone who complains about your methods of conversation, is simply a front...

There you go. You don't know whether it's a "front" or not, or why I say whatever I say. That's all things you're making up...you really don't know me, and don't know my motives. You know only what I write. And what I propose is that your defintion is bad because your defintion is wrong.

Or to say this another way, it doesn't matter that I'm a Christian. It doesn't matter what kind I am. My hat size doesn't matter either. It doesn't matter whether or not your interpret my words as a "front." That's irrelevant. The only question is the proposition in any case: and one I've made, and about which you know I'm correct, is ad hominems are illegitimate.

Stick to the proposition, and things will go well. Get off topic, and we'll end up in the ditch. But you'll have put us there...
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 11:02 pmSo why are you constantly going back to questions of who I am, not what I propose to you?
Your question is improperly binary.

There are entire posts, filled with discursive ideas, that you will not deal with and respond to. You seem to have found in them what you refer, I believe erroneously, as ad hominem. You use this as an excuse to avoid the thrust of the ideas expressed.

I do not care about who you are, in the sense of your personality per se, but I am concerned about you as a man who thinks and has concretized certain ideas, views, perspectives, orientations. And your context, within a specific church, in a specific time in history, with specific beliefs and practices, and which also has an effect on the culture and society, is completely relevant. My view is that the total man, the total person, when it pertains to what is said to be the most important topics that can be considered and thought about, is highly relevant.

You cannot 'propose' anything to me that is not a reflection, or an expression, of your context. All that I have done is made an effort (as I say I do for all of us) to locate you. And I clearly and coherently explain what this means and why it is important.
AJ: There has been no underhanded, nor even diversionary, use of ad hominem.
IC: Then don't use it at all. It's irrelevant in all cases.
You do not define the terms or the parameters of this (or any) conversation. I will determine what my terms are. I am employing the term you improperly use -- ad hominem -- but I reject what you mean by it.
AJ: Your lecturing of me ("Slow down and think. You'll realize that's right"), and of everyone who complains about your methods of conversation, is simply a front...
IC: There you go. You don't know whether it's a "front" or not, or why I say whatever I say. That's all things you're making up...you really don't know me, and don't know my motives. You know only what I write. And what I propose is that your definition is bad because your definition is wrong.
Yes, I do know it is a front, and I also know that it is a 'sham' -- exactly as I described. I have come to this conclusion after months of dealing with you. Yes, I do not know you in daily life, but I certainly know you from what you write. And I am not making anything up but have worked hard, and carefully, not to jump to conclusions. Now, my conclusions are settled. And receently I have revealed what my conclusions are: fairly and carefully explained.
Or to say this another way, it doesn't matter that I'm a Christian. It doesn't matter what kind I am. My hat size doesn't matter either. It doesn't matter whether or not your interpret my words as a "front." That's irrelevant. The only question is the proposition in any case: and one I've made, and about which you know I'm correct, is ad hominems are illegitimate.
It definitely matters what denomination of Christian you are. That determines general beliefs. It also locates you historically since Non-denominationalism is a specific branch of Protestantism that originated in America. It arose in a specific social context. To understand that context (causation) is completely relevant.

If you compare your context . . . to your hat-size . . . you reveal your core error. And what is amazing to me is that you cannot discern it.
Stick to the proposition, and things will go well. Get off topic, and we'll end up in the ditch. But you'll have put us there...
I do not have now and I did not have at any time any problem at all with what I have written. You have the problem. So I suggest that you get over the problem. Your problem is not my problem to solve.

Here is the post which you recently balked at. That is what I'd like to see you do.

Prior to that one is this one, which you also roundly avoided (all below the black line). You began your childish melt-down through some sort of offense that I wrote about you and referred to you in the third person.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 11:31 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 11:02 pmSo why are you constantly going back to questions of who I am, not what I propose to you?
Your question is improperly binary.
It's properly posed. Why the ad hominems?
There are entire posts, filled with discursive ideas, that you will not deal with and respond to.

That's because what they "discurse" is utterly irrelevant.
AJ: There has been no underhanded, nor even diversionary, use of ad hominem.
IC: Then don't use it at all. It's irrelevant in all cases.
You do not define the terms or the parameters of this (or any) conversation.
Logic does.

I you want this to be a logical conversation, that is.
Now, my conclusions are settled.
Hmmm. Doesn't seem to leave a lot to discuss.
It definitely matters what denomination of Christian you are.
Actually, it's still irrelevant.

You might think it accounts for why I say what I say. But it doesn't go one step toward making me wrong. I could be Hitler or Stalin...but even they had to speak the truth from time to time, if only the be the more effectively deceptive. So even in their case, it's the particular claim, not their bad characters, that make a particular utterance of theirs true or false.
Non-denominationalism is a specific branch of Protestantism that originated in America.
It did not, actually.

You're wrong on your history again. It arose in England, in the 19th Century. It was later transferred to the US, but like Anglicanism, took a rather different form on the far side of the Pond. (These are details you don't care about, I see.)

But let all that be true, and it's still irrelevant. The only important question is, "Which tradition, if either, got Christianity basically right?" And to discern that, you have to look beyond any Protestants or Catholics at all, and look at the Biblical record itself.

Which you do not want to do. But would give you a better definition. But it seems you don't want one. You seem happy with your "Christian culture" theory, because it's big, clumsy and simple. So I get the attraction, but don't admire the historicism.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:44 pm Public service message delivered :!:

I'm not posting anything else in this thread.
He'll be back. He's done this over and again at ILP. Leaves our exchange in a snit and then pops up again. Often the new exchange will start out substantive. But then those inevitable questions and those perturbing points of mine that continue to chip away at his own objectivist convictions. He's not nearly as certain as he once was when it all began a decade ago.

If I do say so myself.
Post Reply