Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

You see, AJ, a person can't be totally "open-minded" and reject other beliefs. If you do, you're just narrow in a different way. But you're every bit as resistant to my view as I am to yours. So where is your vaunted 'openness" evident in the above?

I do not recommend 'total open-mindedness', I recommend greater open-mindedness.

There's no reason that's good, either. Having "greater openness" to questions to which there is a ready answer or a basic truth just means "being more confused by the wrong answers." It doesn't make you virtuous.

I definitely do not recommend rejecting the belief-systems of other peoples

Well, except mine...which you reject in the most strenuous terms.

You are well aware that I define you as a fanatic.

There it is!

Boy, I'm glad you're so "open." I'd hate to see what you'd say if you were "closed minded."

I am certainly not *every bit as narrow as you*

Yes, as the above shows.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There's no reason that's good, either. Having "greater openness" to questions to which there is a ready answer or a basic truth just means "being more confused by the wrong answers." It doesn't make you virtuous.

Well, except mine...which you reject in the most strenuous terms.

No, not quite. To see *truth* and to see truthfully means, in my view, to see with nuance. Rarely are things black and white, and rarely can a black and white mind see fairly. You constantly assert that the god you believe in, and the Bible, is the sole locus of *truth*. It is part-and-parcel of the belief-system! I reject this view. You have only one position and you express it when you say that you have a "ready answer or a basic truth". It always resolves back to your self-centered position based as I say it is in Hebrew idea imperialism.

What do you think of my term Hebrew idea imperialism? Can you at least intellectually grasp what it refers to?

It is not true. And I am completely certain that this can be explained in clear and fair terms -- which is what I do. Masterfully. Without charge. Day in and day out!

I personally have determined that you have been 'confused by the wrong answers'. But even this has to be carefully explained. Not every truth alluded to by your imagines system is non-truthful. In fact it contains truths. And these can be parsed out. Your error is to assert that you have the sole or the absolute truth and that your religious system is the only valid one.

With this I adamantly disagree. And the point can be successfully argued.

There it is! Boy, I'm glad you're so "open." I'd hate to see what you'd say if you were "closed minded."

Again wrong. And you are arguing in bad faith. What I say is fair. You are completely possessed by fanaticism. It so dominates you that you are incapable of seeing it.

There is nothing wrong in applying to you a correct and fair description. It is necessary to do so. It demonstrates "clear seeing".

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

[Gary Childress]

It's better to spend your time seeking some solution to today's problems.

Not worth my effort. Even if I had the effort in me to give, there's nothing I can realistically do. The powers that be will have to sort things out for themselves if they want to preserve their world. It's not my world. I resign. Humanity isn't worth it. I have a feeling the only thing awaiting any of us is oblivion anyway. Oblivion was there before we were born. It'll be there in the end. A man can only take so much bad luck and misfortune in life before he stops caring.

[seeds]

_______

I'm not sure which is more annoying to observe?

Is it Mr. Con's attempts to draw his opponents as far away as possible from asking him to respond to the key issue of justifying eternal torture (trillions of years into the infinite) for some transgression that took place during their few short moments on earth?

Or, is it how well his efforts seem to be working to entice some of you guys into the endless twists and turns of his obfuscating labyrinth of side-tracking diversions that have nothing to do with the key issue?

Clearly, there is no getting through to a mind as closed as Mr. Con's.

In which case, all we can do is point out some of the unconscionable implications of Christianity's concept of heaven and hell.

From what I can gather, Mr. Con would have no problem with the following scenario:

Consider what happened a short while ago in Vietnam. According to the History website, American soldiers, in what is known as the Mỹ Lai massacre, raped and murdered the women and children in this very picture...



Indeed, by the time they had finished, they had slaughtered an estimated 504 unarmed people in all.

"...Among the victims were 182 women—17 of them pregnant—and 173 children, including 56 infants..." - History website

Now, according to the doctrines of Christianity, the only thing those soldiers had to do when they got back to the states is invite Jesus into their hearts and ask for forgiveness (accepting Jesus as their personal savior) and they will be absolved of the sickening horror they committed in Vietnam and, thus, granted entrance into heaven.

However,...

(and, apparently, Mr. Con would see no problem here)

...all of those hundreds of raped and slaughtered women and children, because they were probably Buddhists, would be condemned to suffer in hell for eternity.

Again, all we can do is keep pointing out the absurd implications of what some people actually believe.
_______

[Immanuel Can]

There's no reason that's good, either. Having "greater openness" to questions to which there is a ready answer or a basic truth just means "being more confused by the wrong answers." It doesn't make you virtuous.

Well, except mine...which you reject in the most strenuous terms.

No, not quite. To see *truth* and to see truthfully means, in my view, to see with nuance.

That's not enough. It means to see something.

At the end of the day, the manner of one's viewing, if one sees nothing as a result, is entirely irrelevant. Only the result counts. When you are finished, you need to have seen something.

You can be as "open-minded" as you want, without it being any kind of virtue at all. If you don't eventually "close" on some conclusions or facts, then "seeing" remains entirely futile.

It is not true. And I am completely certain that this can be explained in clear and fair terms -- which is what I do. Masterfully. Without charge. Day in and day out!

So...humility is not one of your problems, right?

Your error is to assert that you have the sole or the absolute truth and that your religious system is the only valid one.

2+2 will still = 4. You can whine about a mathematician being so "closed" as to insist it's "the sole and absolute truth," but it won't get you anywhere.

Galileo was arrogant. All his biographers say it was the most notable thing about the man, actually. The Inquisitors told him to soft-pedal his theory, and he refused. And he actually believed that the Earth objectively revolves about the Sun! Imagine the gall, the closed-mindedness, the narrowness of that.

Here's the truth, AJ. "Open" or "closed," the mind that has found truth is better. It's that simple. You don't like it, maybe, because you love obfuscation and indirectness...as is so often reflected in your lengthy sololoquies. But that's how it really is. One might even say it's the "truth."

[Nick_A]

"To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God's people." Henri Nouwen

I've read many of these previous posts and wonder what they have to do with Christianity. The are concerned with reactions to fear of hell or the belief in ones duty to obey morality. But this is Christendom. Has anyone really pondered the essence of Christianity or our potential to love God?

Consider the beginning of the Book of Job. Satan questions if man will love God if he loses what he has? Will he turn and hate God? Job proves his love for God and raises this question for us: what is love of God? What does it mean to love God? Is it the same as secular emotional love? Is the love of God more essential then the imagined duty to obey God or fear God?

The point here is that as long as Christianity is defined by the standards of Christendom, its great depth will be ignored in favor of arguing insignificant details. But since it is how we are, everything remains the same and just turns in circles.

[attofishpi]

Of course I recognize that one can choose to align oneself with Christian ethical ideas and admonitions while being, perhaps, incapable or doubtful of all the wildest mystic and magic beliefs of traditional or historical Christian faith. The mystical and the magical drop away as unnecessary and then one is left in an immediate present having to make reasoned choices.

What are these mystical and magical beliefs and why do you consider them unnecessary?

Is turning water into wine one of them?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Of course I recognize that one can choose to align oneself with Christian ethical ideas and admonitions while being, perhaps, incapable or doubtful of all the wildest mystic and magic beliefs of traditional or historical Christian faith. The mystical and the magical drop away as unnecessary and then one is left in an immediate present having to make reasoned choices.

What are these mystical and magical beliefs and why do you consider them unnecessary?

Is turning water into wine one of them?

What part of traditional or Gospel Christianity is not infused with mystical and magical acts?

[attofishpi]

Of course I recognize that one can choose to align oneself with Christian ethical ideas and admonitions while being, perhaps, incapable or doubtful of all the wildest mystic and magic beliefs of traditional or historical Christian faith. The mystical and the magical drop away as unnecessary and then one is left in an immediate present having to make reasoned choices.

What are these mystical and magical beliefs and why do you consider them unnecessary?

Is turning water into wine one of them?

What part of traditional or Gospel Christianity is not infused with mystical and magical acts?

Alexis..Y are you refusing to answer my questions?

[FlashDangerpants]

_______

I'm not sure which is more annoying to observe?

Is it Mr. Con's attempts to draw his opponents as far away as possible from asking him to respond to the key issue of justifying eternal torture (trillions of years into the infinite) for some transgression that took place during their few short moments on earth?

Or, is it how well his efforts seem to be working to entice some of you guys into the endless twists and turns of his obfuscating labyrinth of side-tracking diversions that have nothing to do with the key issue?

Jacobi is the same as Can. In this thread he might whine that Can demands impossible and unnecessary definition of the term "Christian" as if it is some term of art that only highly specialised professionals can successfully deploy. But when asked which specific aspects of the holocaust he denies in another thread, he pulled the same manoeuvre for the transparently same reason.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What are these mystical and magical beliefs and why do you consider them unnecessary?

Is turning water into wine one of them?

What part of traditional or Gospel Christianity is not infused with mystical and magical acts?

Alexis..Y are you refusing to answer my questions?

I made a reply that contains a question for you while also indirectly responding to your question.

Turning water into wine has the very least relevance in the context of the Gospel story.

Are you refusing to engage with my counter-question?

[attofishpi]

What part of traditional or Gospel Christianity is not infused with mystical and magical acts?

Alexis..Y are you refusing to answer my questions?

I made a reply that contains a question for you while also indirectly responding to your question.

Turning water into wine has the very least relevance in the context of the Gospel story.

Are you refusing to engage with my counter-question?

There is no such thing as magic.

Y do you think "miracles" are irrelevant to the Christian story?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Jacobi is the same as Can. In this thread he might whine that Can demands impossible and unnecessary definition of the term "Christian" as if it is some term of art that only highly specialised professionals can successfully deploy. But when asked which specific aspects of the holocaust he denies in another thread, he pulled the same manoeuvre for the transparently same reason.

You really are looking to establish a conflict!

In that other thread I said I accept the account of the Shoah (I regard the term Holocaust as perverse because it refers to a burnt offering offered to god) with some differences over details. It is extremely cynical to characterize that as Holocaust denial.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is no such thing as magic.

Y do you think "miracles" are irrelevant to the Christian story?

I place miracles and magical acts in a similar category. But I don’t think I’ll quibble over semantics.

The virgin birth cannot precisely be called magic yet it is really sort of god’s magic, no?

Miracles are the core of the Advent and miraculousness infuses the Gospels from one end to the other.