Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:06 pm But when I gave you nothing but the Word of God itself and asked you what you thought, you chose not to respond. I cannot help but note that fact, and wonder at it.

Why?
I think you are asking me why I have not responded to what you presented -- let us say the Biblical truth of what Christian salvation is and means?

First, I did respond, in a way, by more or less agreeing that those are the terms of how salvation is understood by Christians.

Second, I do have many thoughts on the entire notion of salvation, and damnation, and many other things, but I also have other responsibilities. It was a busy morning and only now has it lightened up.
For mainstream Catholic theology teaches the axiom, "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," which translates as, "outside the Church (i.e. Catholicism), [there is] no salvation."
Yes, I do understand that that is said. But then, I think, people (and organizations) say many different things. But the question is Is it absolutely true?

And I do not have an answer for you.

Contradictory truths-claim seem to lead to the eventuality of simply rejecting the entire contradicted area-of-concern.

Patience, patience . . . I'll get back to matters as soon as I am able.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:39 pm Mr. Can has made it clear that everyone here is not living up to the standard of God as defined by that book, and he has told us how much in error we are because he knows better than we, what is possible and not possible from our perspectives. He is an authority on what is true and right, and does not consider any other potential beyond the small glorifying bubble that he operates in.
No one, except Nick, defines themselves as Christian, so how could they live up to the standards of Christianity? (I am unsure what Belinda would say here of her position).

It is more correct to see that he is making strong efforts to define the bedrock of Christian beliefs and to hold to them.

There is a person there doing this, no doubt, but the truths themselves, as he says, are impersonal to him.

Personally, I think you are too wrapped up in the personal aspect here.

If you only discuss the ideas themselves, if that is possible, it makes the conversation more productive.
Last edited by Alexis Jacobi on Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:06 pm But when I gave you nothing but the Word of God itself and asked you what you thought, you chose not to respond. I cannot help but note that fact, and wonder at it.

Why?
I think you are asking me why I have not responded to what you presented -- let us say the Biblical truth of what Christian salvation is and means?
No, I meant to the quotations I provided instead of my opinion...on the question of whether or not "there's always a chance," as you suggested.

Do you still think there's "always a chance"? If so, what fails to convince you otherwise?
For mainstream Catholic theology teaches the axiom, "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," which translates as, "outside the Church (i.e. Catholicism), [there is] no salvation."
Yes, I do understand that that is said. But then, I think, people (and organizations) say many different things. But the question is Is it absolutely true?

And I do not have an answer for you.

It's not a question I needed to ask. Hence, I did not.

We have the answer in Scripture, if we will take the answer.
Patience, patience . . . I'll get back to matters as soon as I am able.
I have no doubt...and am in no hurry. Take your time.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:05 pm No, I meant to the quotations I provided instead of my opinion...on the question of whether or not "there's always a chance," as you suggested.
The quotations came from numerous theological sources, did they not? I examined them for about an hour this AM. And I also ordered the book written by Stott. I have two, or perhaps three, levels of interest. One is my own internal status vis-a-vis life, and spiritual life. Two is a general sociological and cultural interest in the affairs of our day and a better understanding of axial documents relevant to Evangelical belief must be considered. Three is, as I say, the entire question of renovation and regeneration (social and cultural) which is part-and-parcel of modern discourse, both *high* as well as *low* (and vulgar, so to speak).

When I say "There is always a chance" I am, I think, giving God and Divinity more credit than perhaps you recognize. I described to you a scenario whereby a soul could be, shall we say, saved and converted. It is in that sense I mean 'There is always a way'.

If you are asking for me to assess or adjudicate the scriptural references, I do not know if I should take them as 'absolute truths' or 'absolute declarations'. Of those there are so so many.

I tend to see the general Christian stance as too invested in black & white, either/or delimitations. I am not sure that life actually works that way.

And there you have, merely, my own opinion.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:05 pm If you only discuss the ideas themselves, if that is possible, it makes the conversation more productive.
When the ideas don't make sense, do you not question what the person is doing and why?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:05 pm No, I meant to the quotations I provided instead of my opinion...on the question of whether or not "there's always a chance," as you suggested.
The quotations came from numerous theological sources, did they not?
Regarding "there's always a chance"? No. Just the Bible. Exclusively. I used no other sources.

One was a direct quotation from Jesus Christ. One was from Paul. The other two were directly from John's prophecy in Revelation.
If you are asking for me to assess or adjudicate the scriptural references, I do not know if I should take them as 'absolute truths' or 'absolute declarations'.

This is the key issue: is what the Bible says true?

After that, nobody's opinion -- including my own -- matters at all, I suggest. I am entirely prepared to subject my judgments and estimates to the authority of the Word of God. As I said, in anything in which God and I disagree, I am in the wrong...beyond debate.

But what has God said? That's what we need to know.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:05 pm If you only discuss the ideas themselves, if that is possible, it makes the conversation more productive.
When the ideas don't make sense, do you not question what the person is doing and why?
Because, my dear Lace, that's ad hominem.

For Hitler, or Stalin, or the Devil himself sometimes has spoken truth, if only better to hide a deception; and the purest saint can be mistaken or or just have a failure of language and say something she doesn't mean.

So either way, the truth or falsehood of an utterance stands solely on the utterance itself. You will never know whether what a person says is true or not by insulting the person; but you might mislead yourself by mistaking a question of character for one of veracity.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:50 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:17 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:05 pm If you only discuss the ideas themselves, if that is possible, it makes the conversation more productive.
When the ideas don't make sense, do you not question what the person is doing and why?
my dear Lace, that's ad hominem.
You and Alexis do it, as well -- you just pretend that you're being polite about it -- like two men wearing powdered wigs and slapping at each other with white gloves. Your charade is for yourselves. Other people take a more direct, honest approach. Apparently, you only acknowledge a supposed 'ad hominem' when it is directed at you, while you dismiss or excuse your own insults toward other people. Further, you justify ignoring truth by claiming 'ad hominem'. Some of us aren't as interested in dancing with you through all of your distorted gyrations. But we can watch and make fun of it, and call it what it is. :)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:02 pm Other people take a more direct, honest approach.
Y'know, there are men who say that women cannot manage critical thought.

They say that the poor dears instead inevitably think that personalities, not facts, determine truth. As such, it was always a mistake to allow women the vote, or take roles of leadership, or to hold any place in power; for women cannot think straight, and instead collapse into things like spite, cat fights, temper tantrums, backstabbing, character assassination, and other forms of total irrelevancy. In short, they are incapable of transcending the ad hominem.

I think those men are wrong. In fact, about most women, I know they are.

At the same time, I might wish you'd do less to make their case for them.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:46 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:16 pm If you are asking for me to assess or adjudicate the scriptural references, I do not know if I should take them as 'absolute truths' or 'absolute declarations'.
This is the key issue: is what the Bible says true?
Right. Despite all that we can see throughout humankind's history and diversity (past and present) that does not support certain unquestionable 'truth' (let alone supremacy) of the archaic Bible accounting, there are continually those who will deny and distort all that's more broadly seen/witnessed in order to make absolute declarations and insist that they know (and represent) the divine more than other people do. Their claims and beliefs of what they know are dependent on ignoring ALL ELSE that is and can be known. How credible and truthful and demented is that?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:46 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:16 pm If you are asking for me to assess or adjudicate the scriptural references, I do not know if I should take them as 'absolute truths' or 'absolute declarations'.
This is the key issue: is what the Bible says true?
Right. Despite all that we can see throughout humankind's history and diversity (past and present) that does not support certain unquestionable 'truth' (let alone supremacy) of the archaic Bible accounting, there are continually those who will deny and distort all that's more broadly seen/witnessed in order to make absolute declarations and insist that they know (and represent) the divine more than other people do. Their claims and beliefs of what they know are dependent on ignoring ALL ELSE that is and can be known. How credible and truthful and demented is that?
If we assume that all you say above is true, it still does not answer the question: is what the Bible says true?

Whatever you take that answer to be, you will not find the answer in calling people "demented" or speaking of "those who deny" anything, or "humankind's history," or the "ignorant" "they". You'll only find out by weighing the claims the Bible makes.

All else is simply irrelevant to the question.
Nick_A
Posts: 5913
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda
Modern Christianity is increasingly becoming post-Christianity as in the myth of Christ discarded in its literal interpretation, but Christian ethics live on. All theistic religious sects , Humanism, and also the true Eastern religions, whatever their failures have contributed to the conservation of the ethical message. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is Christian ethics codified for present times.
So what is Christian ethics and who decides what it is? From Wiki:
Christian ethics, also known as moral theology, is a multi-faceted ethical system: it is a virtue ethic which focuses on building moral character, and a deontological ethic which emphasizes duty. ... Christian ethics derives its metaphysical core from the Bible, seeing God as the ultimate source of all power.
Moral theology based on the misguided belief in a personal god adopted by modern Christianity. What can become more damaging? Duty replaces the cosmic religious feelings we know of as conscience. An inevitable devolution. Yet some understand. Einstein was one. Why he wasn't killed in defense of duty is surprising.
The development from a religion of fear to a moral religion is a great step in peoples lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based purely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on guard. the truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he want to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930.
I like being in the minority. Must be my lack of education willing to contemplate beyond blind belief and blind denial. But look at some of these others who motivate me. Not so bad after all.

“The greatest responsibility of all: the transmission of the mystery.” —Basarab Nicolescu
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:10 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:02 pm Other people take a more direct, honest approach.
Y'know, there are men who say that women cannot manage critical thought.

They say that the poor dears instead inevitably think that personalities, not facts, determine truth. As such, it was always a mistake to allow women the vote, or take roles of leadership, or to hold any place in power; for women cannot think straight, and instead collapse into things like spite, cat fights, temper tantrums, backstabbing, character assassination, and other forms of total irrelevancy. In short, they are incapable of transcending the ad hominem.

I think those men are wrong. In fact, about most women, I know they are.

At the same time, I might wish you'd do less to make their case for them.
We've heard this misogynist-dripping speech from you before. It's so easy to see who you are when you take your frilly white gloves off. :lol: Many religious leaders like to 'dress themselves up' (through word or deed). But such costuming is only impressive and believable to those who follow (and rely on) superficial expressions.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:45 pm We've heard this misogynist-dripping speech from you before. It's so easy to see who you are when you take your frilly white gloves off. :lol: Many religious leaders like to 'dress themselves up' (through word or deed). But such costuming is only impressive to those who follow (and rely on) superficial expressions.
Then why didn't you learn? Why did you immediately lapse back into exactly the same irrelevancies with which so many women are so unfairly charged?

Why do you give so much aid-and-comfort to those who would dismiss you?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:49 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:45 pm We've heard this misogynist-dripping speech from you before. It's so easy to see who you are when you take your frilly white gloves off. :lol: Many religious leaders like to 'dress themselves up' (through word or deed). But such costuming is only impressive to those who follow (and rely on) superficial expressions.
Then why didn't you learn? Why did you immediately lapse back into exactly the same irrelevancies with which so many women are so unfairly charged?

Why do you give so much aid-and-comfort to those who would dismiss you?
This is why you hide in theism. You are incapable of making sense outside of the bubble you've crafted to glorify yourself.
Post Reply