Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:00 am You would oppress a group of people who are not breaking any laws, and are not harming anyone, simply because you do not approve of their lifestyle, and you frequently try to influence others to adopt the same attitude as yours. Now, technically, that may not be sickness, but it's certainly not a sign of a healthy character.
The larger issue is actually what concerns me: what happens when sexual expression becomes unchained and unrestrained. I said that I notice a causal relationship between the homosexual revolution, the sexual revolution generally, and modern sexual dysphoria. The issue is certainly explotable philosophically and should be explorable. There are sound philosophical reasons why social systems restrain sexual expression, and there are reasons why homosexuality had been repressed universally.

In our societies of course it is fair and proper to grant rights and offer protections to homosexual citizens. But in my view it is questionable whether free license should be socially acceptable. And that is why I say that a general attitude of tolerant aversion is likely best (or would have been).

The question of “harm” is also one explorable philosophically. I think that the unleashing of sexual restraints has resulted in myriad harms. For that reason these issues must be looked at holistically. Degeneracy and decadence (cf Camille Paglia) can be examined carefully and rationally — when examination is not shut down with the sort of tools you use. (It’s a you-plural).

If I seek to “influence”, m’boy, it is really an admonition exactly in the arena I always challenge you to notice how weak you are: intellectual work. In my opinion you are extremely insufficient in the background needed for genuine intellectual work. You read nothing and you’ve read nothing. Your attitude of unstudied rebellion seems to me to be a genuine problem. And again these are not tendencies peculiar to you-singular. Quite literally they are defects of 1-2 generations.

I am interested in and pay attention to your ignorant spouting-off because it is, itself, a flaw that must be confronted.

I get the sense that I am repeating myself (!) 😂
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:40 am
Harbal wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:00 am You would oppress a group of people who are not breaking any laws, and are not harming anyone, simply because you do not approve of their lifestyle, and you frequently try to influence others to adopt the same attitude as yours. Now, technically, that may not be sickness, but it's certainly not a sign of a healthy character.
If I seek to “influence”, m’boy, it is really an admonition exactly in the arena I always challenge you to notice how weak you are: intellectual work. In my opinion you are extremely insufficient in the background needed for genuine intellectual work. You read nothing and you’ve read nothing.
Check it out Harbal. You've read nothing! :wink: ..and you are not intellectual!!! - Jacobi equates intelligence with knowledge - a common mistake.

The problem with Jacobi is, that he has read shitloads of stuff, searching for answers but his spiritual inkling has offered nothing, as has his intellect to apply to such words within the books he has read to anything worthy of comprehension intelligently.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:50 am
Ideas, their strength or weakness, and structures of ideas and what they build in the world, can be (should be) examined separately from personal, subjective experience.

You present “subjective experience” — what you have lived and learned — as the core or essential arena. To challenge any part of what you reveal subjectively, is taken as an attack or a challenge to your self.

I value subjectivity, and to the degree that seems proper, your subjective conclusions, but you operate substantially outside of “the realm of ideas”.

Subjectivity can be compared to a mirror turned inward. That is a necessary endeavor or process but one that also presents problems. Extreme objectivity can also be critiqued of course (lacking a subjective turn).

The critiques I offered are relevant and valid. But I am largely convinced that debating your personal subjectivity is not the right tack and could not turn out well. As just above you will react personally. It amounts to an attack on your self.

But on an idea level I can comment on some of it if you grant me permission.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:13 pm The critiques I offered are relevant and valid. But I am largely convinced that debating your personal subjectivity is not the right tack and could not turn out well. As just above you will react personally. It amounts to an attack on your self.

Not at all, oh so little ye under_stands me.
Here are the critiques I answered in full, all you now need to do Jacobi is address them...ALL :mrgreen:




Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 2:44 pmI hope a few comments of mine will not rouse too much ire.
Of course not, as long as you extend the courtesy in any discussion with me of refraining from omitting what I have stated during our discourse and address all of my replies to you.
It’s rare to find anyone on the forum these days that keep the conversation in its entirety which is a shame, and cowardly in my opinion.

Alexis Jacobi wrote:First, I must say that I have read Atto for months and months now and, I notice, that he has next to zero comprehension of the inner structure of the Christian religion and philosophy.
RE: Christianity - I've got a lot more than 'zero comphension' of it - I know enough to know that I don't agree with the interpretations of the Bible that have created "Christianity".
I know that I am a Christian (and apparently a good one, as sage/God have stated to me about three times: "Good Christian").

Alexis Jacobi wrote: I could not say this in such a way that it is not a critique, that would be dishonest, and what I note is odd and peculiar but not atypical: raised in Catholicism, but the post-Vatican ll perversion of it (that according to traditional Catholics), he shows what happens when one becomes separated from the 'inner structure' of the religion as a religion and philosophy.
Yes, raised through Catholic school system, I learned to accept people for who they are and help those in need.
Since then, and with regards to the Catholic stance on homosexuality and contraception, they can shove it.
So, I am a Christian regardless of Christian "philosophy".
You are clearly homophobic. I think I was slightly, until about the age of 18 when a friend told me the story of his homosexual brother. At that point, I understood that sexual attraction is not clearly defined, certainly not by what is between one’s legs.

RE: Philosophy. - Since joining this forum I have stated many times that I have barely read a word that any philosopher has written. I like to read books on physics and science in general.
Part of the reason I have kept away from writings of philosophers is that I always wanted to develop my own ideas about things but always with a view (now) to start reading more on the area. Over the years, if ever there was a philosophical subject area I was not familiar with, I would at least do some research to comprehend what people are debating.
Philosophy requires an extremely good comprehension of applying ones rational, logic to subject matter. I have nothing lacking in this ability.
In fact, the original term for philosophy being "love of wisdom", I consider my approach to be very wise. Not only do I comprehend, and love Christ and learnt a great deal about God and the nature of reality through my faith, I balance this with my understanding of scientific theories and technology.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: When that happens, all relationship to the substantial structure of the religion, which is based in clearly expressed doctrines, is lost. Atto cannot, for reasons of ignorance (of these doctrines) make any intelligent statements about Christianity and, oddly but predictably, he regards any such statements and allusions to such doctrines as superfluous. In any case this is what I have gathered.
Again, shove man's ridiculous interpretations of the Bible, if you feel I cannot make any intelligent statement about Christianity because I don't agree with its poorly reasoned tenets, then clearly you are rather daft.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: I naturally draw a distinction between the intensely subjective and idiosyncratic nature of Atto's experience (which he refers to as something like the true and honest inner dimension of Christianity)..
There you go, an irrational statement. My extensive experience of God has little to do with man’s creation of the religion labelled "Christianity", so you certainly should not infer from anything I have written that I consider my comprehension of God as a true and honest "inner dimension of Christianity". You need to differentiate my own Christian faith, from that of the established religion Christianity. I don’t disagree with everything with mainstream Christianity, but I disagree with what I consider contradictory to what Christ is believed to said and done.
Most of those that adhere to “Christianity” would scoff at my analysis of experience and remain in belief with what is preached by those with NO actual experience of God (Priests\Pastors etc..)..and thus their BIGOTRY will remain.

Alexis Jacobi wrote:But Atto can be studied (examined, questioned, looked at) as an example of the destructiveness of the various 'reform' processes of Vatican ll which have, again according to Catholic traditionalists, led to extremely destructive currents entering the Church itself. It is a difficult topic, I admit, but their arguments are not incoherent.
You are ignorant of anything I have written, you have not examined my "Simulation or Divine Reality" thread, and I doubt you would have the intelligence to comprehend it. You are knowledgeable, and a wordsmith enjoyable to read, but not particularly skilled where analytical comprehension of subject matter is concerned (like so many "philosophers" here).

Alexis Jacobi wrote:Lex orandi, lex credendi: the rule or influence of what one's prayers are composed of, the content of one's enunciated prayers (which can be extended to mean all that one honestly and truly believes and therefore recites as part of one's "lived liturgy"), determine what one "believes", which I take to be more than simply statements that one makes about some aspect of doctrine, but the entire way that one lives life -- this is what Lex orandi, lex credendi actually means.
Such WONDERFUL knowledge. I said a prayer about an hour before the sage introduced himself to me from the aether. I asked for the pain in my fractured arm to go (since I had no pain killers, screw up with a hospital prescription)
"Would you like me to erase that?" - was the reply - "Yes" I said.
All the pain in my fractured arm dissapeared...for 10 mins, and then the pain started to return.
"Do you understand?" was said to me.
At the time I didn't, but I can reason why now, in hindsight.

So prayers above as you state require true belief in doctrine I guess with your poor, vague comprehension of what I believe re doctrine, is bollocks.

Alexis Jacobi wrote:It is curious to me that one of the major oppositions to traditional Christianity comes from those on the front of *radical sexuality*. First, it was homosexual rights. And incrimentally it progresses from those rights (granted) to ever-new demands for the *right* to give oneself justification for many other radical (or "liberated") sexual forms. The *curious* part is that it will not stop. It is in the nature of sexual license that once permission is granted or attained, that a next step is inevitable.
Provide anything from Bible scipture that you feel support doctrine within Christianity opposing homosexuality.

Realmente haces suposiciones mal fundamentadas sobre mí.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:40 am
Harbal wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:00 am You would oppress a group of people who are not breaking any laws, and are not harming anyone, simply because you do not approve of their lifestyle, and you frequently try to influence others to adopt the same attitude as yours. Now, technically, that may not be sickness, but it's certainly not a sign of a healthy character.
The larger issue is actually what concerns me: what happens when sexual expression becomes unchained and unrestrained.
I imagine it leads to unrestrained sexual expression, along with a good deal of joy.
I said that I notice a causal relationship between the homosexual revolution, the sexual revolution generally, and modern sexual dysphoria.
It would have been more appropriate to have noticed a correlation.
there are reasons why homosexuality had been repressed universally.
I'm sure there were reasons before it occurred to us that it was wrong to suppress people simply for not being to our taste.
In our societies of course it is fair and proper to grant rights and offer protections to homosexual citizens. But in my view it is questionable whether free license should be socially acceptable.
And you think it was acceptable to condemn a significant proportion of the population to a life of secrecy and misery, do you?
The question of “harm” is also one explorable philosophically. I think that the unleashing of sexual restraints has resulted in myriad harms.
And which harms among this myriad would you consider the worst?
If I seek to “influence”, m’boy, it is really an admonition exactly in the arena I always challenge you to notice how weak you are:
But not so weak as to be influenced by the likes of you.
In my opinion you are extremely insufficient in the background needed for genuine intellectual work.
So I should leave it to intellectuals -among whom you presumably place yourself- to inform me of the values I should adopt, and the people I should approve of? I may not be an intellectual, but I'm not that stupid. :|
You read nothing and you’ve read nothing.
You seem to have read plenty, and just look at how that turned out. :?
Your attitude of unstudied rebellion seems to me to be a genuine problem.
Which just goes to show how much it is possible to achieve with a minimum of effort. :wink:
And again these are not tendencies peculiar to you-singular.
I'm pleased to hear it.
I am interested in and pay attention to your ignorant spouting-off because it is, itself, a flaw that must be confronted.
Well if I must be confronted, I'm grateful that it isn't by anyone of substance.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:23 pm Not at all, oh so little ye under_stands me.
I asked for permission and as of yet you have not given it.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:59 pm
attofishpi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:23 pm Not at all, oh so little ye under_stands me.
I asked for permission and as of yet you have not given it.
What part of this reply of mine do you not understand as permission? My God, the so called "intellectuals" on this forum can't fathom a farthing from a wishing well full of pennies.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:13 pm The critiques I offered are relevant and valid. But I am largely convinced that debating your personal subjectivity is not the right tack and could not turn out well. As just above you will react personally. It amounts to an attack on your self.

Not at all, oh so little ye under_stands me.

Here are the critiques I answered in full, all you now need to do Jacobi is address them...ALL :mrgreen:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Note to others:

Please explain to me how and why this [too] is not completely ridiculous.

Forget about me. He has these videos that he is convinced offers evidence that [beyond a leap of faith] the Christian God resides in Heaven. He is convinced the evidence is so strong that it enabled him to jettison a Kierkegaardian leap of faith to God or to place a Pascalian wager. Instead, the videos were so powerful he is now able to believe that in fact if others watch them, they too will surely know that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

So why for the sake of others, is he unwilling to link us to the video he is convinced offers the most compelling proof of the Christian God's existence.

He wants others to choose carefully but he refuses to provide them with any concrete evidence...corroborative proof that will actually establish the incentive for them to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. And to achieve salvation for their very soul on Judgment Day.

Would anyone else here who had such hard evidence for the existence of their own God not bring it to our attention?

How can all if this not indicate instead that even he knows the evidence is such that a leap of faith or a wager would still be required.
phyllo wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:58 am Isn't this just harassment?
Come on, with all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, wouldn't you harass someone who claims to have proof that God does in fact exist to produce it?

Especially when he insists that those who do not worship and adore his own God will be Judged by God? May, in fact, be condemned to eternal damnation in Hell?

Besides, for years [both there and here], you have been harassing me with any number of what I construe to be Stooge "retorts".

So you're one to talk! :wink:
User avatar
phyllo
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:58 pm
Location: Слава Україні!

Re: Christianity

Post by phyllo »

You asked him to provide one video.

He doesn't want to reduce it one video.

Why can't you respect that?

How many times are you going to ask the same thing?

If you think it's so important ,then watch all the videos. If you don't think it's important or you think the videos are BS, then don't watch any of them. Anyone here can make the same decision.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Why We Shouldn't Hate Philosophy
Michael Gleghorn at the Bible.org site
Should Christians, then, hate and reject all philosophy? Should we shun it, despise it, and trample it underfoot? Doesn’t the Bible warn us about the dangers of philosophy and urge us to avoid it?
Just out of curiosity, does it?

Colossians 2:8: See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Of course, this would be applicable to sociology and psychology and anthropology and history and political science and science itself. If something is not wholly in sync with the Bible...?

But it is my own philosophy in particular that is most disturbing to Christians. And that is because my aim is less to argue against Christianity and more to suggest that belief in Christianity is itself rooted existentially in the life one lived. After all, what if the life you lived never put you in touch with the teachings of Christ? What if, instead, it put you in touch with an entirely different God? Or with No God? In fact, the whole point of religion is to provide one with the One True Path. What that path actually is can be anything.
In thinking through such questions, it’s important that we be careful. Before we possibly injure ourselves with any violent, knee-jerk reactions, we may first want to settle down a bit and ask ourselves a few questions. First, what exactly is philosophy anyway? What, if anything, does the Bible have to say about it?
Start here: https://www.openbible.info/topics/philosophy

As for what philosophy is, first, of course, the dictionary:

"...the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."

Now, I'm less interested in the "academic discipline" part myself and more intrigued by the parts that revolve around ethics and the "Big Questions".

And, in regard to both, what could possibly more crucial than pinning down whether or not a God, the God does exist?
Might it have any value for the Christian faith? Could it possibly help strengthen or support the ministry of the church? Are there any potential benefits that Christians might gain from studying philosophy? And if so, what are they? These are just a few of the questions that we want to consider.
Of course: general philosophical questions aimed at providing the faithful with general philosophical answers.

But for those who do insist that "the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" must begin with God, how will philosophy be approached other than to add another layer to that leap of faith?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

attofishpi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:56 amCheck it out Harbal. You've read nothing! :wink: ..and you are not intellectual!!! - Jacobi equates intelligence with knowledge - a common mistake.
First, what is the purpose of critique? If that is not clarified all will be confused. My view is that *we* are spokesmen for the time we are in. So, what we say has far more meaning, and relevance, that extends beyond the personal, and our persons. This is a philosophy forum and, in the best of all circumstances, it is a place to discuss ideas and their relationship to the contemporary landscape. Revealing (and understanding) one's purpose is important for this reason.

You begin with a substantial error, Atto. A misunderstanding (a bad understanding). In our culture, like it or not, to be an *intellectual* is to be involved with and informed by the ideas of others. And one gets those ideas exclusively through reading. There is no way around this. It is simply a fact.

Your first mistake is that you believe that because I notice that you do not have *intellectual background* (and that Harbal certainly does not) that you take this to mean that I believe you unintelligent. But intelligence is a separate category from that of being intellectually informed and conversant.

Another mistake has two aspects. One, that you do not understand, or seem not to understand, that human being is determined by having and using language. Knowledge is deeply associated with and wedded to language. Literacy is more than merely memorizing by rote, it is familiarity with the ideas that are foundational to our culture. True, there are many different dimensions or areas within our literary culture, and I would not deny that there exists a 'literacy' that is, for example, one pertaining to music -- a whole other topic -- but nevertheless the wider familiarity with our cultural heritage, principally but not exclusively transmitted through language and the written word, depends on what one reads. It is absurd in the first degree to take another position, a contrary position, within the context of Occidental knowledge and certain on a philosophy forum.

But with that said it would be and is foolish (misguided, incorrect) to insist that there are no other means to attain what you refer to as 'knowledge' outside of the discipline of reading, study, conversation and general sharing of ideas. There are all sorts of different ways to experience and gain knowledge and understanding. And it is for this reason that, when I first encountered you (what you write) that it was obvious to me that you are a person deeply involved in an extremely subjective and extremely personal sort of experience. Did I invalidate this at any point? No.
I've got a lot more than 'zero comprehension' of it - I know enough to know that I don't agree with the interpretations of the Bible that have created "Christianity". I know that I am a Christian (and apparently a good one, as sage/God have stated to me about three times: "Good Christian").
What you say here needs to be addressed, but as I say it involves critique which, given your subjectivity, will appear to be a critique of your person, your self. That is one problem with 'subjectivity' when it is used as an inward-looking mirror.

To refer to 'sage/god' as having said this or that to you, and to present that as some sort of evidence that your process has yielded something more than a subjective impression, a self-referential assertion of truth, indicates that your thinking is strangely muddled. You could simply be involved in hallucinations. So, no one cares what an internal voice has said to you, and no one should care. It is not something that can be introduced as a valid measure or determinant. Again, the way you set this up is that some disembodied voice that you hear, and which validates some idea or impression that you subjectively have, is bizarre. If everyone involved in *the world of ideas* referred to a voice that spoke to them, or validated an idea, we would be in a very strange place indeed.

There is nothing particularly wrong with disagreement with Bible interpretation. Anyone in fact can state any particular opinion. But stating an opinion, if it is not (say) backed up with a clearly enunciated exposition, or with more than a superficial reading of the Bible and the history of interpretation (hermeneutics), does not qualify as more than a mere subjective impression. And, going further, and speaking of what you seem to do, to rely solely on subjective experience and to employ that as the sole yardstick for arriving at a (say) balanced understanding of what the Bible is and in the context of the conversation on-going here about Christianity as a historical entity, is extremely questionable at the very least. Does this invalidate your subjective impression? No. But it certainly could mean that I have no particularly good reason to pay much attention to your subjective experiences. And again, reliance on a voice that speaks to you must, I think, be dismissed when it is presented as you often present it.

The statement you made, therefore, is off-kilter. I struggle to find the right way (the fair way) to describe it. And again the way you set this up is that to challenge what you say is not to challenge some ideas that can be examined objectively or dispassionately, but is taken by you as invalidation of your self. Your self, your experience, your life, has total value and relevancy for you personally and subjectively, but the actual fact is that it does not have any bearing at all on our understanding of what Christianity is. And it seems apparent, to me, that you struggle to make the distinction. An obvious error of subjectivity.
Yes, raised through Catholic school system, I learned to accept people for who they are and help those in need. Since then, and with regards to the Catholic stance on homosexuality and contraception, they can shove it.
What I notice is the sense of personal defense. Something emotional. But what you say is oddly lopsided. I will try to explain.

Catholic doctrine is involved, voluminous, expounds on all different topic related to social and spiritual life, and thus is a great deal more than your mere reduction and a strangely self-centered statement: I learned to accept people for who they are and help those in need. You have said nothing really, and you give evidence of having no familiarity with the doctrines of Catholicism, except in a very superficial sense. I do not think the larger, doctrinal position of Catholicism or Christianity generally, sets its goal as "accepting people for who they are". This is the first notable error. I do not want to harp on this too much but it is quite important. If anything at all (if you take the words of the Gospel as having validity) the figure Jesus Christ proposed *perfection* as an object. That could very well mean establishing dissatisfaction with 'the way we are' as a beginning step. Catholicism establishes a mountain to climb, in fact, where the individual is molded and constructed by personal work.

I would venture to say that in this statement that you made, that you demonstrate something that tradicional Catholics point to when they criticize the effects of Vatican ll. They say that by changing the focus from an ideal demand to 'accepting people as they are' the mission of Christianity was substantially altered. I do not expect that you know much about this because, as I suggest, you are far on the outside of these issues and concerns.

The other point -- concerning charity -- is also highly relevant. According to a more sound Catholic doctrine (than your version of it) you can only be charitable if you are actually serving higher levels of truth. And one must have made decisions about what those higher levels are. They are, in fact, extremely demanding. And I say this as one who has been reading such material for about a decade now. I am not "pulling this out of my ass".

But defining what the 'object' of spiritual and religious life actually is, is a fraught endeavor in our confused and rebellious present. (Personally, I am more or less certain of this). So the actual question is "What is charity?" It is not 'accepting people as they are if they are not grounded in truth. And you certainly are aware that there is a great deal of debate about what is true today! My impression of you is that you could not enunciate what the Christian/Catholic project in relation to the individual actually is. I base this on reading what you write. You are, therefore, like so many of us, a post-Christian and also a post-Catholic. But the chances are high that you will take this not as a "constructive criticism" but as an invitation to do battle (with your subjectivity).
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Attofishpi wrote: There you go, an irrational statement. My extensive experience of God has little to do with man’s creation of the religion labelled "Christianity", so you certainly should not infer from anything I have written that I consider my comprehension of God as a true and honest "inner dimension of Christianity". You need to differentiate my own Christian faith, from that of the established religion Christianity. I don’t disagree with everything with mainstream Christianity, but I disagree with what I consider contradictory to what Christ is believed to said and done.
Your experience of God, Atto, is totally irrelevant to anyone but yourself. What I mean by this is not that I, or anyone, do not want to hear of your experience, but that we do not take it as having an particular value or relevancy within a larger conversation that deals with important cultural and social issues.

Therefore I cannot infer that when you refer to your experiences that you have any particular relationship with it doctrinally, and potentially in any other way, except through subjective experience which, necessarily, remains totally subjective.

What you reject, what you don't reject, what you value, what you disvalue -- none of this has much importance since, in our world, we require more extensive proofs. That is why we have schools and schools of thought. Indeed universities.

I do not need to do anything at all in respect to your intense subjectivity. I could bemusedly listen to you, because you seem a genuinely nice person, or I could hold to the sense of your decency while completely rejecting what might be mere cockamamie ramblings. Unless you present specific ideas, and defend those values through articulation, there is nothing of what you say that I or anyone else should accept.
but I disagree with what I consider contradictory to what Christ is believed to said and done.
Now there is where actual conversation begins. Protestantism takes a substantially contrary position in relation to Catholicism and its 'traditions' and foundations.

Oh hold on a sec .... Incoming ....

[Internally: What? Hmmmm I see what you mean. OK. I see your point.]

I just got a transmission from Strenafaron of Andromeda, Seventh Level Articulate Angel of the Snitifarus Tribe. He says (I have to translate this)
"It is unlikely that you will make much progress in comminicating with Attofishpi. Are you nuts?!? Why are you even trying, sucker?"
[He always speaks this directly. I've got used to it].
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Long, long ago, Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Spain, ordered masses to be said for the return of the flotillas carrying their cargoes of golden bounty from the New World.

My prayers are far more modest: May Energy Drink be abundant in Australia!

Image
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

phyllo wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 2:56 pm You asked him to provide one video.

He doesn't want to reduce it one video.

Why can't you respect that?

How many times are you going to ask the same thing?

If you think it's so important ,then watch all the videos. If you don't think it's important or you think the videos are BS, then don't watch any of them. Anyone here can make the same decision.
Look, that's how you react to his claim that beyond a leap of faith, the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

"If it's important" to know this?! What could possibly be more important?!!

But are you or are you not a Christian yourself? If you are [through a leap of faith] then you've got your font for objective morality on this side of the grave and hope for immortality and salvation on the other side.

And I was once a Christian myself so I am much familiar with how being one can comfort and console you.

So -- subconsciously? unconsciously? -- there is part of me that truly does want to believe again. And along comes IC claiming that beyond a leap of faith, beyond the usual "God exists because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is true because it is the word of God" tautology, tells me that there are actually videos that, if watched, will convince some that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

Now, am I going to invest hours of my time watching all 16 videos? Maybe. But, after all, there are others who believe in different Gods who can dump videos on me as well.

So, all I ask of him is that he link me to the most powerful video. The one that had the greatest impact on him. And, again, forget about me. What about others here -- both other faiths and No God atheists -- who if the video is all he claims may accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Their souls saved for all of eternity.

Really, give me an actual reasonable explanation as to why he won't provide that link?

How can it not be other than this: that he himself recognizes what is provided in the video[s] will, in the end, just have to be accepted in yet another leap of faith. That, in other words, it does not constitute actual evidence on par with someone who doubts that the Pope really does exists and resides in the Vatican being linked to videos establishing that as in fact true.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:56 pm Long, long ago, Ferdinand and Isabella, king and queen of Spain, ordered masses to be said
And I bet it was still far less than you have to say. :|
Post Reply