I looked at the first post. And then the last post. My next thought was along the following line:

"What the fuck?"

Rhythm Wrote:Christianity, based on peace and understanding?  Well now you're just blowing smoke up somebody's hole Kernel. Are you really treating a person with respect or understanding by pandering? 

Quote: It's based on vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice.  I'm sure plenty of christians find peace or understanding in it (after all, they;re good at seeing things that aren't there), or are..themselves, peaceful and understanding people (like most of us, some of the time)...but that doesn't change the core concept of the religion, the nature of the narrative and title of Christ from which the faith and term "Christianity" is derived. You;re not honestly addressing their faith if you have to whitewash it, and in doing so you are not respecting or accepting it for what it is, but rather what you wish for it to be. It's difficult to find the integrity in -that-.

After doing some thinking, your conclusion is both valid and accurate; you were right, and I was wrong.  Making a grandiose statement and generalization concerning their faith was very shortsighted of me; projecting my idealism onto another worldview will not help me understand it.  As always, thank you for your candor and directness, sir. 

(October 21, 2016 at 9:59 pm)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: God and the kingdom of heaven is perfect. Just like oil and water cannot mix, the same as it is in heaven. What if it's a microscopic drop of oil? Still won't mix. Jesus did not die on the cross for everyone. Jesus died so that all COULD be saved. It is a free gift. Accept or reject him it's up to you.

Let me see if I can boil this down. Are you saying that god equals objective truth? (maybe the thread has strayed)

Are not jesus and god the same? If yes, jesus death was a fake. Unless god dies also. But then there is nobody to bring anyone back to life. Maybe this is where the holy goat comes in? HUH?

(October 22, 2016 at 4:47 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

Rhythm Wrote:Christianity, based on peace and understanding?  Well now you're just blowing smoke up somebody's hole Kernel. Are you really treating a person with respect or understanding by pandering? 

Quote: It's based on vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice.  I'm sure plenty of christians find peace or understanding in it (after all, they;re good at seeing things that aren't there), or are..themselves, peaceful and understanding people (like most of us, some of the time)...but that doesn't change the core concept of the religion, the nature of the narrative and title of Christ from which the faith and term "Christianity" is derived. You;re not honestly addressing their faith if you have to whitewash it, and in doing so you are not respecting or accepting it for what it is, but rather what you wish for it to be. It's difficult to find the integrity in -that-.

After doing some thinking, your conclusion is both valid and accurate; you were right, and I was wrong.  Making a grandiose statement and generalization concerning their faith was very shortsighted of me; projecting my idealism onto another worldview will not help me understand it.  As always, thank you for your candor and directness, sir. 

You are exceedingly epic, Kernel.

I'm very fond of turning the other cheek and I like how Christianity in theory values forgiveness.

However unfortunately in practice Christians are often self-righteous, preachy, sanctimonious, preachy and vengeful rather than forgiving and tolerant.

But there are good Christians, too, of course... it's just not because of their Christianity.

Moral philosophy predates Christianity and even the Golden Rule was expressed by Confucius before it was expressed by Jesus. And certainly many times by many others before that, even if it weren't recorded.

I just realized I said "preachy" twice.

I'll not edit that out though. I'll leave it as it is. It's rather appropriate.

I think it's time OP got on with it. Let's suppose there is objective truth. Where does that leave us?

(October 23, 2016 at 6:37 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I think it's time OP got on with it. Let's suppose there is objective truth. Where does that leave us?

You'd probably see where is was going with this if you read everything. But 20+ pages fair enough. Pretty much i'd follow with asking how you can justify the use of objectivity. But from a naturalist world view would always end up being circular reasoning, requiring a trancendant cause.

(October 24, 2016 at 12:36 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

(October 23, 2016 at 6:37 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I think it's time OP got on with it.  Let's suppose there is objective truth.  Where does that leave us?

You'd probably see where is was going with this if you read everything. But 20+ pages fair enough. Pretty much i'd follow with asking how you can justify the use of objectivity. But from a naturalist world view would always end up being circular reasoning, requiring a trancendant cause.

I can answer that.  Objectivity need not be a world view.  It is simply a label which combines two things: 1) the belief that others exist; 2) the belief that there are things which are sharable among you and those others.

(October 24, 2016 at 12:36 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

(October 23, 2016 at 6:37 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I think it's time OP got on with it.  Let's suppose there is objective truth.  Where does that leave us?

You'd probably see where is was going with this if you read everything. But 20+ pages fair enough. Pretty much i'd follow with asking how you can justify the use of objectivity. But from a naturalist world view would always end up being circular reasoning, requiring a trancendant cause.

Bollocks. The use of objectivity is neither justified or established by a transcendant cause, i.e. God, anymore than it is by naturalistic explanation. This seems to depend on an extreme form of the PSR, implying that everything must have an explanation. It's trivial to define God as a lawgiver. Such definitions come cheap. It does not follow from an inability of a naturalist to justify their use of the objective that objectivity requires a transcendant cause. That's an argument from ignorance. Let's call a spade a spade. You're arguing that the existence of objective facts requires God. That's the most ludicrous assertion I've heard lately and is not supported by an argument from ignorance.

(October 24, 2016 at 12:50 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 12:36 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: You'd probably see where is was going with this if you read everything. But 20+ pages fair enough. Pretty much i'd follow with asking how you can justify the use of objectivity. But from a naturalist world view would always end up being circular reasoning, requiring a trancendant cause.

Bollocks. The use of objectivity is neither justified or established by a transcendant cause, i.e. God, anymore than it is by naturalistic explanation. This seems to depend on an extreme form of the PSR, implying that everything must have an explanation. It's trivial to define God as a lawgiver. Such definitions come cheap. It does not follow from an inability of a naturalist to justify their use of the objective that objectivity requires a transcendant cause. That's an argument from ignorance. Let's call a spade a spade. You're arguing that the existence of objective facts requires God. That's the most ludicrous assertion I've heard lately and is not supported by an argument from ignorance.

So digging through all the unnececary filler, your response is we don't need a explanation for everything is that correct?

---

(October 24, 2016 at 12:48 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 12:36 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: You'd probably see where is was going with this if you read everything. But 20+ pages fair enough. Pretty much i'd follow with asking how you can justify the use of objectivity. But from a naturalist world view would always end up being circular reasoning, requiring a trancendant cause.

I can answer that.  Objectivity need not be a world view.  It is simply a label which combines two things: 1) the belief that others exist; 2) the belief that there are things which are sharable among you and those others.

Objectivity isn't a world view, it is somthing we observe. Laws of logic, morality, uniformity in nature. If you don't subscribe to this than we have nothing more to discuss.

---

(October 23, 2016 at 6:02 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(October 22, 2016 at 4:47 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: After doing some thinking, your conclusion is both valid and accurate; you were right, and I was wrong.  Making a grandiose statement and generalization concerning their faith was very shortsighted of me; projecting my idealism onto another worldview will not help me understand it.  As always, thank you for your candor and directness, sir. 

You are exceedingly epic, Kernel.

I'm very fond of turning the other cheek and I like how Christianity in theory values forgiveness.

However unfortunately in practice Christians are often self-righteous, preachy, sanctimonious, preachy and vengeful rather than forgiving and tolerant.

But there are good Christians, too, of course... it's just not because of their Christianity.

Moral philosophy predates Christianity and even the Golden Rule was expressed by Confucius before it was expressed by Jesus. And certainly many times by many others before that, even if it weren't recorded.

Of course it predates everything, it is etched in all our hearts.