Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7211
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pm
I've discussed this here, at length, in other threads...and even made some references to it in this one. So that's not a very good theory.
iambiguous wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 9:41 pm...where are the posts in which he actually provides us with a demonstrable proof of the Christian God's existence.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:14 pm Go and look. There are some in this very thread, and lots elsewhere. You're just late on the scene and not up to speed.
Note to others:

I challenge you to find this demonstrable proof of his that the Christian God does in fact exist. If you recall the distinction I made is between the demonstrable proof Christians can provide that the Pope resides in the Vatican vs. demonstrable proof that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

Note to phyllo:

Please note his argument yourself and explain to me why, perhaps, I should be satisfied with his answer.
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 the Christian God?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pmI addressed this one too...with you personally, as I recall. You seem to have forgotten.
Again:

Well, let him provide us with what he construes to be his best argument -- demonstrable proof? -- that of all the hundreds and hundreds of One True Religious Paths out there offering us immortality and salvation, his really, really, really, really is the One True Religious Path.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:14 pm Yep. Why don't you tell us what you remember, and we'll fill in the holes in your knowledge.

I'll warrant you don't remember a thing. It's hard to, when you have fingers in both ears.
Note to phyllo:

Tell me I don't have another Stooge here!
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pmI pointed out that you don't even know what you mean by "dasein." So if there's a problem with that, it's on you, for not knowing what you're talking about.
Again:

He's pointed that out. But where's the part where he demonstrates that his own childhood indoctrination, his own personal experiences predisposing him toward the Christian God have absolutely no bearing on his own existential leap of faith? How intellectually shallow does one have to be not to recognize the role that their own historical, cultural and personal experiences play in their religious beliefs?

Note to phyllo:

Please explain to him why the points I raise in the OPs on these threads...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...might actually be more comprehensive than a definition.

Perhaps IC might come around to admitting to himself his sacred definitions are important largely because exchanging definitions and deductions basically amounts to his whole argument here for the Christian God. Define and deduce Him into existence.

I ask this of you because he seems committed to using you in order to "prove" that he's right about all this.
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and the Christian God
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pm You mean my favourite types of questions? Anytime you like.
How about his favorite answer to the question, "why did the Christian God bring into existence...earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical afflictions and extinction events...
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pm He didn't. We did. But we talked about this before, earlier in this thread...once again, you were on a nap, I guess.
What?! We did?!! Mere mortals are responsible for the existence of all of those terrible, terrible catastrophes?!!!!

I dare you to go back to "before" and reacquaint me with your "reasoning" here.
...making life on Earth a living hell
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pm Oh, the melodrama! :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
So, the excruciating pain and suffering endured by those millions upon millions of men, women and children down through the ages is just "melodrama" to you? How about to Him?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pm Yes, life is nothing but Hell. You got that right. Yep. Sure; whatever you say. There are no good things on Earth.
Note where I have ever argued that. Of course human existence isn't just hell. Of course there are good things on Earth.

But what's that got to do with those "acts of God" above that amount to a staggering amount of agonizing suffering that, among others, the truly, truly innocent children endure?

Look, I can accept that some will take a leap of faith to the Christian God. And that when confronted with the ghastly "natural disasters" that pummel the human species over and over and over again, they just fall back on "God works in mysterious ways". If they can believe that and it soothes their soul, fine, each of us comes to this from different perspectives. Or they can rationalize it re the argument of those like Rabbi Kushner.

Then there are the apologists like you.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

iambiguous wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:19 am Then there are the apologists like you.
Well, I have things to say on all those questions you floated. They're reallly just the routine ones, and not anywhere so astonishing as you seem to imagine. I mean, seriously -- can you actually be telling yourself that in 2,000 years of the greatest minds in history, nobody's thought of them at all? And now you trot them out, and fancy yourself surprising?

So there are answers. But a person's got to be willing to think, to investigate, to consider, to converse, and to take the answers seriously. And to consider the possibility he hasn't already thought of everything.

And right now, I'm thinking that person just isn't you.

So I'll save my breath.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7211
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:16 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:19 am Then there are the apologists like you.
Well, I have things to say on all those questions you floated. They're reallly just the routine ones, and not anywhere so astonishing as you seem to imagine. I mean, seriously -- can you actually be telling yourself that in 2,000 years of the greatest minds in history, nobody's thought of them at all? And now you trot them out, and fancy yourself surprising?

So there are answers. But a person's got to be willing to think, to investigate, to consider, to converse, and to take the answers seriously. And to consider the possibility he hasn't already thought of everything.

And right now, I'm thinking that person just isn't you.

So I'll save my breath.
Yet again, I reduce him down to this ridiculous "so there are answers".

Just not from him.

Though by all means, if others here are willing to take him seriously, carry on. :roll:
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:16 am So there are answers. But a person's got to be willing to think, to investigate, to consider, to converse, and to take the answers seriously. And to consider the possibility he hasn't already thought of everything.
Considering the source, if this isn't a blast, I don't know what is! This from someone expounding on certain desirable qualities yet possessing none of them himself. TV evangelists are like that as a matter of course but for them selling holy water is a business. You seem to enjoy, on its own terms, being the forum's ultimate hypocrite and liar as proven in almost every post you make where none of the points you mention are adhered to. All that requires a degree of compromise without which every debate must fail.

What some people on this site still don't get is that you are an absolute DEAD END with zero ability to think beyond scripture; one who knows categorically god exists and that Jesus is the god in whom belief is ordered for salvation. That belief on its own qualifies as an aberration since it is factually impossible to know any such thing even for an atheist!

But the mind of every extreme zealot contains its own immune system without which the health and longevity of any uncompromising fundamentalist position cannot be maintained. Its antibodies are ever alert to whatever may attack it. To it, every fact or counterview becomes counterfactual to be disposed of by ignoring it, dismissing it out of hand, or distorting it into an absurdity in defence of your own.

All of these things you do, continue to do, as expected, making yourself completely irrelevant relating to any debate on the subject as a bona fide DEAD END.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:16 am But a person's got to be willing to think, to investigate, to consider, to converse, and to take the answers seriously. And to consider the possibility he hasn't already thought of everything.
So basically, what your saying is if we just think hard enough we can think a God into existence. As if I could ask my brain..come on brain work for me, work with me now...think a God into existence...oh, there we go. All I had to do was to think about God and God exists.



Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:16 amSo I'll save my breath.
No you wont. Serial apologists would never abandon their God. The God you thought up. (to wit) toowhoo!


God exists, only because thought says it does...because god is a known concept.


Intelligent people know this already.

It's like saying nature exists, again, because it's a concept known.


To know something requires a knower...the knower is one. God is just another word for knowing...so every conceivable concept known is this knowing, aka god.


I know Hitler was known as an evil person...that's knowing, aka god.....and that IC is the truth you cannot handle.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

iambiguous wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:55 am
"so there are answers".
Lets examine the nature of the ''questioneer'' here? Where is the questioneer located exactly? has it ever been seen to exist as a physical object?

Therefore, we already have all the answers, all of them, every single last one of them... because the very idea that a question can exist...means an answer must also exist for every question..

If there is such a thing known as a ''questioneer'' that too will be a formed idea, and so will the answers be formed ideas. Afterall, Imagination is infinite in it's creativity, in it's capacity to form ideas.

Right now, see if you can point directly to the ''imagination''? ...see, see how this all works, it's all an illusory magic trick.


I'm guessing IC never liked being dragged along to watch magic shows as a kid. He strikes me as being one of those kids that had to know how magic worked, and not be left not-knowing...he was probably a kid who wanted the real deal... :lol:
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:16 am So there are answers. But a person's got to be willing to think, to investigate, to consider, to converse, and to take the answers seriously. And to consider the possibility he hasn't already thought of everything.
Think about this:


WAS CHRIST OF THE FLESH? ..or simulated. :twisted:

Chess Jurist and the Passage of Time.
Image

www.androcies.com
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: Christianity

Post by phyllo »

iambiguous wrote :
Note to others:

I challenge you to find this demonstrable proof of his that the Christian God does in fact exist. If you recall the distinction I made is between the demonstrable proof Christians can provide that the Pope resides in the Vatican vs. demonstrable proof that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

Note to phyllo:

Please note his argument yourself and explain to me why, perhaps, I should be satisfied with his answer.
You're not going to be satisfied with any answer that a human being can give you.

How do I know this? Because I have asked you and others have asked you on more than one occasion. Here is one exchange:
phyllo wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:
iambiguous, What would you accept as a demonstration of “God, your Kingdom, your spiritual path” and “the true path” since you rejected my answers above - or why did you reject them?

Restating stuff without defining acceptable demonstration … gives us no mark or goal post for progress in discourse toward truth.
How about this...

We wake up one morning and there's this guy on every single television channel around the globe telling us that He is God. And, He tells us, in order to prove this, He will make it so that in the next 24 hours not a single child anywhere around the world will die from starvation, or go to bed hungry, or suffer any sexual or emotional abuse, or, in fact, not be bursting at the seams with great big smiles.

And incredibly enough, He turns out to be virtually indistinguishable from your own "private and personal" Christian God.

That'll work as "good news of the Kingdom" for me.

Also, just out of curiosity, given that for many the Christian God is said to be infinitely loving, just and merciful, why isn't it that the way for all children now?
I guess that I have to state the obvious.

This is not a "demonstration" or "proof" that anyone on this forum, or any human, can provide. It depends entirely on God doing something specific for you.

Therefore, anyone attempting to address point 1] ( a demonstrable proof of the existence your God, your Kingdom, your spiritual path) is guaranteed to fail.

Maybe that's intentional.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

promethean75 wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 7:20 pm I bid thee, what so troubles my Christian brothers that they should quarrel and fight as they do?
Because they secretly know jack shit, they know they know nothing, and so they lie that they know, and that lie terrifies them in case they get found out. Normal people know they are lying, even they themselves know they are lying, but they become so invested and involved with their made-up BS that they become trapped within their own intrenched groove...and is why they continue to lie just to save face.

Catholics believe that the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter whom Jesus appointed as the first head of his church. Each Pope is part of what Catholicism calls the apostolic succession, an unbroken line back to Peter and has supreme authority.

If the Pope was to do a lie detector test about his beliefs in the idea of a Christ/God. . and what Chirst/God actually stands for, including the idea of evolution and the suffering and carnage that has to happen if anything was to evolve at all. My guess is, he'll fail the test.

Every religious kook head that ever lived is lying not only to themselves, but to their special little groupie circles and other congregations. They'd rather live this lie than discover they were wrong all along,which would be disasterous and detrimental and would collapse every church that was ever built to a seething mass of dust.


.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5148
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

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

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

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

Have I pegged your position aright? Is that not the difference you perceive as well?
In order to respond to you, intellectually and to a degree abstractly, I have to define that there are two general but distinct issues here. One has to do with the question of *What Christianity is* and the other has to do with *What sort of Christian you are* which also has to do with what sort of person and personality you are within this conversation. You resist any focus that shines light on you as a person and as a representative of your specific religious and existential Christian philosophy and often complain (whimper, sulk, act out) when you are complained about. Yet everyone complains about you. And they say pretty much the same thing.

So the problem I face is that I perceive in the brand of Christianity that you seem to me to represent (I say it is Protestant Evangelism though to be more precise it is Non-Denominational Protestantism).

I find this paragraph interesting because, as you know, I came to a similar conclusion about your (strange and tendentious) Nondenominational Protestant position:
Presbyterian dogmatic theologian Amy Plantinga Pauw writes that Protestant nondenominational congregations "often seem to lack any acknowledgement of their debts and ties to larger church traditions" and argues that "for now, these non-denominational churches are living off the theological capital of more established Christian communities, including those of denominational Protestantism." Pauw considers denominationalism to be a "unifying and conserving force in Christianity, nurturing and carrying forward distinctive theological traditions" (such as Wesleyanism being supported by Methodist denominations).
This is why I say that you have a unique position in which you have *hopped over* everything that Christianity actually was, culturally and historically, and take up a fundamentalist position which allows for a near-total revisionism. I find this thoroughly dishonest. And I notice that this doctrinal or theological dishonestly, a tremendous flaw, seems to me to be reflected or in any case present in your person. So I must mention that every person who speaks to you develops the impression that you are dishonest. You have lost nearly all standing. And I must say that you have lost standing in my eyes. In short I find you fundamentally dishonest and incapable of genuine introspection.

So it is in this sense that I am faced with a problem. I will try to expand on this while I make the effort to respond to your observations/questions. It is a hard area to sort through though and I find it daunting to a degree.

"The key differences in our approach"

Well, in my view, the major key difference is that you are *running a scam*. I will carefully explain what I mean. Yet note that when I use the second person singular I actually mean a far wider second person plural. I have to speak beyond you and to a generality. Why do I say this? Rather simple: you tendentiously resolve to separate out from what Christianity really is a gleaned grasp of Christianity, and you separate out its real doctrines and history, and the different currents that have made it what it is (a very wide thing and certainly not just one thing), and thus present a idealized Christianity which you claim as the only true one. The root of Non-denominational Protestantism has its origins in the Restoration Movement:
The Restoration Movement (also known as the American Restoration Movement or the Stone–Campbell Movement, and pejoratively as Campbellism) is a Christian movement that began on the United States frontier during the Second Great Awakening (1790–1840) of the early 19th century. The pioneers of this movement were seeking to reform the church from within and sought "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament."

The Restoration Movement developed from several independent strands of religious revival that idealized early Christianity. Two groups, which independently developed similar approaches to the Christian faith, were particularly important. The first, led by Barton W. Stone, began at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, and identified as "Christians". The second began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia) and was led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell, both educated in Scotland; they eventually used the name "Disciples of Christ". Both groups sought to restore the whole Christian church based on visible patterns set forth in the New Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832 they joined in fellowship with a handshake.
The following is important:
Both groups promoted a return to the purposes of the 1st-century churches as described in the New Testament. One historian of the movement has argued that it was primarily a unity movement, with the restoration motif playing a subordinate role.
This is what I call a manoeuvre: you-plural resolve, with an act of your will, to deny what Christianity really was and is through a negation-manoeuvre. This allows you-plural to establish a Cat Bird's Seat -- a unique perch -- that provides you with a critical platform to separate yourself from historical Christianity while determining for it a very different, and as I say tendentious, direction. Hence this explains or sheds light on American Non-Denominational Christianity of the Mega-Church variety, and a sort of arrogance and presumption through which you-plural determine yourselves to be 'true Christians' and, concomitantly, that all other are therefore false to one degree or another.

"I believe that no progress is possible without reconstruction of the individual man (or woman)"

What I need to point out to you is that this is more, a great deal more, than what it appears. One has to examine the statement and, also, see behind it, to get to the content purported.

It may be, and it certainly is true in my estimation, that reconstruction of the individual' is paramount in all cases. But reconstruction according to whom? And in relation to what 'reconstruction doctrines', ideas, ideals? So within your Mega Churches (though you may attend a smaller one), yes, a whole program is outlined through which the *rebirth* you evangelize for takes place. I am not at all convinced that I see the program you represent as being any sort of final statement about what is needed -- spiritually, socially, culturally and religiously. But I do admit that it ia a huge cultural force (mostly in America).

But what you say is This is what Jesus Christ says is solely important! And if you do not care to listen to what Jesus Christ says you will soon be in Hell! This is actually what you say. And you constantly resolve to this statement. You've said it to me and you have said it to everyone. You earn (justifiably) the contempt of everyone you use it on. Though of course you use the *there is a train speeding at you and I, in my goodness, only want to alert you to the accident you will soon face*. This is basic, low-level, Christian evangelical apologetics.

I regard you and the *Christianity* you represent as a farce. I do not say this with ad hominem anger. I am trying to make careful and rational statements about you and you-plural in order to clarify the differences between us. You asked for this, right?

"Each of us sees our respective levels of analysis as not only the most revealing and informative, but also as the determinative one"

Our 'respective levels of analysis', in fact, have next to nothing in common. They are so different that they cannot be examined as being on the same, nor a similar, plane. You have no real and honest way to understand what I talk about because you exist in and think within a System that completely determines your *Christian* view. Yet you are so involved in it, committed to it, invested in it, that you cannot see outside of it or around it.

But this is not, in any sense, my position. Basically, you cannot understand (comprehend) much of what I talk about. Like *water off a duck's back* any idea that does not conform to the tenets of Nondenominational Protestantism cannot get through to you! Any pertinent comment is pushed away. All bullets miss" is the way you put it. And that is how I define the Cat Bird's Seat.

"Have I pegged your position aright? Is that not the difference you perceive as well?"

First, I do not think you can "peg" me because your perspectives are so limited. You cannot "peg" me because you cannot see me. You interpose various interpretive lenses when you look. Any issue or problem or situation that we view will be viewed very differently. You through your unalterable limitation, and me through an attempt to see in far wider terms, including a great deal more. So for example I bring out many things that are, indeed, important to consider and think about, but all of these are so many irrelevancies for you, with you mono-focus and your fanatic focus.

Still, I am interested in you and you-plural (mainstream Christianity generally and post-Christianity in the Nietzschean sense) because you certainly have your place. For example Lauren Witzke (I linked to an interview of her above) has more in common with you than she does with me. She describes her recovery process as a personal renovation from the ground up. In accord with Biblical Christian principles (and she would certainly include Jesus and the Holy Spirit as part-and-parcel of her salvation). And unquestionably this was done in a Protestant Christian context and with the Bible at the core. I do not dismiss any of this. I do tend to see it in a way different from how she would describe it though. I do not see it as 'false'. But speaking about that would be suitable for another post.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 6:54 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:55 am
"so there are answers".
Lets examine the nature of the ''questioneer'' here? Where is the questioneer located exactly? has it ever been seen to exist as a physical object?

Therefore, we already have all the answers, all of them, every single last one of them... because the very idea that a question can exist...means an answer must also exist for every question..

If there is such a thing known as a ''questioneer'' that too will be a formed idea, and so will the answers be formed ideas. Afterall, Imagination is infinite in it's creativity, in it's capacity to form ideas.

Right now, see if you can point directly to the ''imagination''? ...see, see how this all works, it's all an illusory magic trick.


I'm guessing IC never liked being dragged along to watch magic shows as a kid. He strikes me as being one of those kids that had to know how magic worked, and not be left not-knowing...he was probably a kid who wanted the real deal... :lol:
What is a question?

“We are born for meaning, not pleasure, unless it is pleasure that is steeped in meaning.” — Jacob Needleman

Is the goal of human life pleasure and happiness or is it to experience objective meaning? You can say objective meaning is just a dream but what of those who sense it is not? The fact that we don't know what meaning is can just mean we are asleep to it as residents of Plato's cave.

You can say that the need for meaning is just conditioned imagination while I can say avoiding the question as imagination is the satisfaction of imagination.

Who questions? The higher part of your being which questions the hypocrisy between the higher and lower parts of your being. It questions the contradiction. It may be easier to say it doesn't exist but not enough for those who seek to reconcile the contradiction in pursuit of the experience of "meaning."
The contradictions the mind comes up against—these are the only realities: they are the criterion of the real. There is no contradiction in what is imaginary. Contradiction is the test of necessity.

Contradiction experienced to the very depths of the being tears us heart and soul: it is the cross. Simone Weil
Many questions. Who has the need and quality of attention to experience our own contradictions? Yet for a seeker of truth it is a necessity. Perhaps the essence of esoteric Christianity provides the help necessary to experience our contradictions and profit from them in our being
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Nick_A wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 5:48 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 6:54 am
iambiguous wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 3:55 am
"so there are answers".
Lets examine the nature of the ''questioneer'' here? Where is the questioneer located exactly? has it ever been seen to exist as a physical object?

Therefore, we already have all the answers, all of them, every single last one of them... because the very idea that a question can exist...means an answer must also exist for every question..

If there is such a thing known as a ''questioneer'' that too will be a formed idea, and so will the answers be formed ideas. Afterall, Imagination is infinite in it's creativity, in it's capacity to form ideas.

Right now, see if you can point directly to the ''imagination''? ...see, see how this all works, it's all an illusory magic trick.


I'm guessing IC never liked being dragged along to watch magic shows as a kid. He strikes me as being one of those kids that had to know how magic worked, and not be left not-knowing...he was probably a kid who wanted the real deal... :lol:
What is a question?

“We are born for meaning, not pleasure, unless it is pleasure that is steeped in meaning.” — Jacob Needleman

Is the goal of human life pleasure and happiness or is it to experience objective meaning? You can say objective meaning is just a dream but what of those who sense it is not? The fact that we don't know what meaning is can just mean we are asleep to it as residents of Plato's cave.

You can say that the need for meaning is just conditioned imagination while I can say avoiding the question as imagination is the satisfaction of imagination.

Who questions? The higher part of your being which questions the hypocrisy between the higher and lower parts of your being. It questions the contradiction. It may be easier to say it doesn't exist but not enough for those who seek to reconcile the contradiction in pursuit of the experience of "meaning."
The contradictions the mind comes up against—these are the only realities: they are the criterion of the real. There is no contradiction in what is imaginary. Contradiction is the test of necessity.

Contradiction experienced to the very depths of the being tears us heart and soul: it is the cross. Simone Weil
Many questions. Who has the need and quality of attention to experience our own contradictions? Yet for a seeker of truth it is a necessity. Perhaps the essence of esoteric Christianity provides the help necessary to experience our contradictions and profit from them in our being
You are missing the point.

The idea there is a questioneer with a question exists within the artificial dream of spacetime duality separation...aka the mind.

A question can only arise to the sense of a separate self where there isn't one...the belief in a separate self is a story, always a story...this mentally constructed conception, likened to a dream.

There is no higher or lower being/self. Dualists are not... the one who believes the spirit is separate from the body, is dismissing the natural world...dissociated from the natural world. The problem is, decartes substance dualism turned the body into an object, but there is no evidence to say the body is an earth suit for the spirit. You are a human ape, full stop.

There is no invisble being inside of a meat carcass.

Believe whatever you want, but it will only be a story, not reality.

Reality has no meaning, no purpose or need to be. Niether will it care or miss us when we go extinct. This planet's need for humans has about as much weight as the planet mars need for little white fluffy bunnies.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7211
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote :
Note to others:

I challenge you to find this demonstrable proof of his that the Christian God does in fact exist. If you recall the distinction I made is between the demonstrable proof Christians can provide that the Pope resides in the Vatican vs. demonstrable proof that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

Note to phyllo:

Please note his argument yourself and explain to me why, perhaps, I should be satisfied with his answer.
phyllo wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:28 pm You're not going to be satisfied with any answer that a human being can give you.
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.

Note to others:

Just for the record, phyllo -- aka larry -- and I go way back. Ten years+ over at ILP. Indeed, back when ILP itself was a real philosophy forum.
phyllo wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 12:28 pmHow do I know this? Because I have asked you and others have asked you on more than one occasion. Here is one exchange:
Ichthus77 wrote:
iambiguous, What would you accept as a demonstration of “God, your Kingdom, your spiritual path” and “the true path” since you rejected my answers above - or why did you reject them?

Restating stuff without defining acceptable demonstration … gives us no mark or goal post for progress in discourse toward truth.
How about this...

We wake up one morning and there's this guy on every single television channel around the globe telling us that He is God. And, He tells us, in order to prove this, He will make it so that in the next 24 hours not a single child anywhere around the world will die from starvation, or go to bed hungry, or suffer any sexual or emotional abuse, or, in fact, not be bursting at the seams with great big smiles.

And incredibly enough, He turns out to be virtually indistinguishable from your own "private and personal" Christian God.

That'll work as "good news of the Kingdom" for me.

Also, just out of curiosity, given that for many the Christian God is said to be infinitely loving, just and merciful, why isn't it that the way for all children now?
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?!!

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: I guess that I have to state the obvious.

This is not a "demonstration" or "proof" that anyone on this forum, or any human, can provide. It depends entirely on God doing something specific for you.
Which of course depends entirely on the assumption that this God does in fact exist in order to do it for me. Taking us back to this:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God

Then on to the next three factors.
phyllo wrote: Therefore, anyone attempting to address point 1] ( a demonstrable proof of the existence your God, your Kingdom, your spiritual path) is guaranteed to fail.

Maybe that's intentional.
No, not guaranteed to fail. I am, after all, perfectly willing to acknowledge that God is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself. And who am I to say that the Christian God does not exist? Of course, He might exist. I'm not like some non-believers here who [as I noted to Bob and felix and Ierrellus over at ILP] preach the gospel of atheism.

On the other hand, with so much at stake for us on both sides of the grave -- morality here and now, immortality and salvation there and then -- what could possibly be more crucial than that, if there is a God, the God, it becomes crystal clear which one it is?!!
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.

Note to others:

Just for the record, phyllo -- aka larry -- and I go way back. Ten years+ over at ILP. Indeed, back when ILP itself was a real philosophy forum.
I have no reason to believe that you would be satisfied with their answer.

Time is a great teacher.
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?!!
Yes, that would remove a lot of doubt. (Expect for those who think everything is a conspiracy by the globalist elites. Which is a surprisingly larger number of philosophy forum members. :shock: But I digress.)

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.

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.
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.
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.
Which of course depends entirely on the assumption that this God does in fact exist in order to do it for me. Taking us back to this:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God

Then on to the next three factors.
The absurd circularity of this.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 6:37 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 5:48 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 6:54 am

Lets examine the nature of the ''questioneer'' here? Where is the questioneer located exactly? has it ever been seen to exist as a physical object?

Therefore, we already have all the answers, all of them, every single last one of them... because the very idea that a question can exist...means an answer must also exist for every question..

If there is such a thing known as a ''questioneer'' that too will be a formed idea, and so will the answers be formed ideas. Afterall, Imagination is infinite in it's creativity, in it's capacity to form ideas.

Right now, see if you can point directly to the ''imagination''? ...see, see how this all works, it's all an illusory magic trick.


I'm guessing IC never liked being dragged along to watch magic shows as a kid. He strikes me as being one of those kids that had to know how magic worked, and not be left not-knowing...he was probably a kid who wanted the real deal... :lol:
What is a question?

“We are born for meaning, not pleasure, unless it is pleasure that is steeped in meaning.” — Jacob Needleman

Is the goal of human life pleasure and happiness or is it to experience objective meaning? You can say objective meaning is just a dream but what of those who sense it is not? The fact that we don't know what meaning is can just mean we are asleep to it as residents of Plato's cave.

You can say that the need for meaning is just conditioned imagination while I can say avoiding the question as imagination is the satisfaction of imagination.

Who questions? The higher part of your being which questions the hypocrisy between the higher and lower parts of your being. It questions the contradiction. It may be easier to say it doesn't exist but not enough for those who seek to reconcile the contradiction in pursuit of the experience of "meaning."
The contradictions the mind comes up against—these are the only realities: they are the criterion of the real. There is no contradiction in what is imaginary. Contradiction is the test of necessity.

Contradiction experienced to the very depths of the being tears us heart and soul: it is the cross. Simone Weil
Many questions. Who has the need and quality of attention to experience our own contradictions? Yet for a seeker of truth it is a necessity. Perhaps the essence of esoteric Christianity provides the help necessary to experience our contradictions and profit from them in our being
You are missing the point.

The idea there is a questioneer with a question exists within the artificial dream of spacetime duality separation...aka the mind.

A question can only arise to the sense of a separate self where there isn't one...the belief in a separate self is a story, always a story...this mentally constructed conception, likened to a dream.

There is no higher or lower being/self. Dualists are not... the one who believes the spirit is separate from the body, is dismissing the natural world...dissociated from the natural world. The problem is, decartes substance dualism turned the body into an object, but there is no evidence to say the body is an earth suit for the spirit. You are a human ape, full stop.

There is no invisble being inside of a meat carcass.

Believe whatever you want, but it will only be a story, not reality.

Reality has no meaning, no purpose or need to be. Niether will it care or miss us when we go extinct. This planet's need for humans has about as much weight as the planet mars need for little white fluffy bunnies.

Have you verified any of this dream? For example I can be in a room with ten others and verify that we have the same experience with the laws of physics, chemistry, and math. We may all experience gravity. Is that just a dream from ten people?
Post Reply