| sapphi_snake said: A. Thing is, Christianity really is full of contradictions. Already pointed out some in this very thread. C1. What Immanent Critique? Is it your new catch-phrase or something? We were not talking about a particular belief system. I told you to prove to me that helping others is in itself good, that it's an intrinsic quality of this act. Your claim that there has never been a culture or even species of animal that has not seen helping others as something that should be done and "good." is not only false (I remember reading an article about morality once, where it was mentioned that there was a tribe in Austrialia where things like lying, murder, and quite frankly the exact opposite of "helping others" was seen as good, plus there are several examples in the animal world of animals who do not even help members of the same species), but I fail to see why this would be proof that helping others is intrinsicly good. Going by your logic misogynism and racism are also intrisicly good, as they're present (and have been encouraged) in pretty much every culture. Try again. C2. What does free will have to do with what I was saying? His claim was that there`s all the room for individuality and unity with God and I went on to disprove this. Also, unlike your "candies and apple example", not all actions have "positive or negative implications" that are caused by the action themselves. All the things that god labels sins aren't so because they bring bad consiquences themselves (because lots of things considered sins are not intrisicly bad, such as homosexuality), but because "god says so". There is no room for individuality if you wanna be "with god", as only there is a standard model considered "good" that people need to adhere to, in order to be "good" themsleves. Conformity and individuality don't go together. Again, I was not discussign free will at all. D. But you are the one who is not thinking hard enough, and quite frankly, considering the terribly poor responses you're providing (that seem in places to not even have anything to do with what I'm arguing), I wonder if you're thinking at all... Yes, life does have an impact on the individual. But god, being all knowing, already knows what this impact will be. Yes, god needs to separate the faithful and not faithful. But since god is all knowing, he already knows who was/is/will be faithful, and who will not. Look at life as a movie, with human beings as characters. God is the spectator, and he has to evaluate each character based on their actions in the movie. However god already has the screenplay, he's read it, he knows what every single thing each character will feel, think, want, desire, do, won't do, how things will affect them etc. He knows the outcome. Is there any point in seeing the movie, when all that needs to be known already is? No, there isn't. You can argue that people have free will etc., but since god is all knowing, he already knows how they will use their free will (else he would not be all knowing, which is a CONTRADICTION to Christian dogma). You think life is meaningful? Gosh, you've convinced me with your incredible arguments. How could I have been so blid??? ... Oh, wait a minute. I see no arguments. Care to elaborate on WHY you think life is meaningful? |
A) Except... you didn't. You've thought you did, but haven't because you lack an actual understanding about what you are argueing.
Furthermore this wasn't about Christianity. It was about that exact statement. Of which you've failed to prove contradictory. You keep trying to broaden the point because you have no sufficient arguement for the one at hand... if you wish to admit your fault and continue. Feel free, but lets deal with the arugement you started.
However, I've got a surprise for you... Christianity as a whole does pass Immanent criqute. (When you do it on an idividual basis) Pretty much all religions do.
No amount of wishing is going to prove otherwise. Also as a warning, true Immanent Critique of a whole religion generally is going to be the size of a disertation.
C1) We are using Immanent critique to criqute that statement. Which means it's good, because it's good, because it's stated as good. That's how immanent criqute works. Also, if such cultures and animals exist... feel free to show it. What you'll often find when you reseaerch is... they don't not really. You usually find such stuff like that is often delibritly misreperesented.
C2) If your not discussing free will... then your just wrong... because you aren't still looking through things through immanent criqute. I mean first off, one doesn't have to follow gods laws to get into heaven, hell the whole basis of Christianity is that man CAN'T follow gods laws and even the greatest man will slip up once. Hell, not even Jesus is shown as perfect.
Additionally, people who follow the same laws don't have indivudality?
Becuase everyone in Romania has the same laws, is every law abiding citizen in Romania exactly the same.
Is there NO room to be an individual in Romania?
Heck, in (most branches) Christianity, you could be a homosexual rapist murderer, and still get into heaven... if Christianity has no room for individuality, then clearly no society with rules has any room for individuality.
D) It may seem like i'm not replying to what your argueing because a lot of your arguements are either poorly defined or completely irrelevent. You've just used this baseline statement to go way out of the original scope of your arguement to go into yet another anti-religion rant.
Is there any point to seeing a movie when you know what's going to happen? So, you've never rewatched an old movie?
Again, you've ignored the entire point of agency. A father, often lets his son fail rather then not let him try, because in failing it teaches him a lesson.
This is where you are failing to use immanent critique. You are saying to yourself "I Hate Christianity, it's wrong, how can i disprove it worng!" When immanent criqute goes "Christian beliefs are these, if I was a christian I would believe this, is this statement contradictory."
What you are missing, yet again, is that god cares about all of those he creates, including the sinners, and would not wish to rob them of their agency or of their expierences in life.
In general, you are going to continue to fail at immanent critique because you feel passionatly about the subject, and don't have the compacity to look at subjects you feel strongly for rationally... as was shown recently in the price gouging arguement where you admitted logically I was right, but said you thought there was a better way but just didn't know it. In effect, ironically, relying on faith.
Which ironically, you do far more often then you'd like to admit.
E) As for why I think life is meaningful. That in of itself would take a long time, and a lot of explination and generally probably wouldn't help you.
If you want a better reason for living, I suggest messaging Stof. Not even sure he checks the boards anymore, but he's generally who i'd go to for Atheist "spirtual" advice. Or philosphical advice if you'd prefer.
