@lestatdark
Sorry It won't let me quote from my iPad for some reason.

I don't plan on posting really anything else, but I was just supporting the OP in the first bit and the last bit I just added on because another post I read made me think about and I just had to get it out. And believe me I don't want to get in the middle of this debate, so just leave this as my last comment and don't drag me into it anybody.

I know you support the OP and I respect you for it. As I said, I won't try to argue with you about it, so i'll back down as well

Calvinism, right? The whole concept of predestination always bugged me as to how they worked it without them just doing whatever the hell they want

I have only one believe. I truly believe noone on this planet now and in the past has truly a clue whats going on. All wisdom on this planet all knowledge is only partially true nothing i read or witnessed made me think that it makes sense to follow it there is no truth to find not yet. believe what you want in the end everybody will be wrong.

thats what i believe about religions.

To the OP and those Internetreligons aka nwo illuminati rothshild bilderberg group 9/11 2012.

Everything and i mean really everything is scrambled information with almost no substance. pick out any fact and make your own research you will see its all partially wrong or totally wrong or true but the facts around it twisted . Mashed together it draws a crude picture of reality that can only be considered fiction.

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.

Except... that isn't Eastern Orthodox theology.

Furthermore, you've now admittied you've condemned all christianity as contradicting and wrong, based on what you know of one particular version of it without even botehering to learn what the other branches of it believes.

Eastern Orthodox theology holds that there is nothng you can do to earn salvation, but that it is a gift from god, a gift he will not force on anyone.

Aside from which, Salvation is not the "point" of life in any branch of Christianity.  Though they focus towards it, since it's certaitly the most important part of life.

I mean, it's worth noting that Jesus came after earth existed for a long time, and people existed for a long time.

"Await the day of clouding
Earth mother's sharing in our pain
Erase the human memory
They know not of where they came
And though our hearts are broken
We have to wipe the tears away
In vain they did not suffer
Then Thousand Strong will seize the day"

Im waiting for Set Abominae to rise up....lol

Really, greed in this sense is not limited to money, and a rich person giving money away is less impressive then a poor person. Still, no one donates without pressure unless they'll feel good for doing that (and under pessure means they'd feel worse not doing). People want money so they have things like power, fame and proprierty. But ultimately all of these are only longed for because they make you feel good, so buying a yatch or donating is really the same thing. The impressive donation comes from people who'll actually suffer from the donation and that's absolutelly not the norm. It's the poor guy who hasn't eaten for the past three days and has no idea when he'll get anything else to eat giving food away. Even then we could debate how selfless that really is when you look deep enought, but let's call that selfless for now.

There are two points I want to make out of that, but they're kind of tied togheter, so forgive me if I'm unclear.

First, you have these kinds of "selfless" donation on lots of other animals. It may not be in form of money but various species are capable of sacrificing their lives for others. You may argue they're not reasoning about what they are doing or don't even know what death is (which would be over simplifying the matter) but the fact is that donation is not exclusivelly human nor there's reason to believe very advanced rationality is necessary for that. A rational donation actually would be more in the lines of a buisness proposition, but that's beside the point. So, yeah, by now you realise I do see us as animals, and you can change that vision and yours with naturalistic and creationist in my first post and that should work.

The second point is there are reasons we feel good or bad for doing determined things, and we do have a basis, a natural instinct in ourselves. And those reasons are shared with many other animals. Saying we have free will and are detached from nature while "animals" have none is simply your bias talking. I could just as well point out that just as a child may decide to obey it's parents, so may a dog. You tell him not to do something he's about to do, he has two opposing urges, and this divergence has to be dealt with. How different is that really from "I wanna buy a yatch but donating to this charity would be great for those children"?

I mean, you may point the dog is just crudely balancing his wants and his fear of punishment, but how much would the rich guy be able to enjoy his yatch knowing that decision made all those children suffer? And how good wouldn't he feel helping them? Where's the practical difference? If free will is being able to resolve an internal conflict of interest, then every living being has free will.

Those basic instincts I talked about earlier, they're fundamental to our frame of mind, but as social and learning animals we build on that, and every decision we make we refer to those things. See, some people can buy that yatch and not feel bad with themselves. In fact, most people can. It's also natural to feel good helping others, but our needs and wants are central to us. But the fact is you can't make a choice at all without a personality, a background on which you run and weight your different options, and in our case that's our mind, our very definition of self. That's our identity, so our choises are made by us. They do have and impact on us and that framework, on our minds, but it's not like we decide if we're gonna be happy about donating or indifferent about suffering, we, just as any other animal, don't have that kind of control.

Again, I apologise, I was thinking as I typed and won't take the time to try and polish it up :P

Yeah, but the "proper" way would be to include the act of creation on that criticism. Simply knowing the future doesn't infringe on free will (whatever that really is), but if you're creator, all powerfull and all knowing then not only you could choose to create differently, you know how that would affect the entire future. So God would be essentially deciding on all of our actions at the moment of creation, thus negating free will.

Of course that can be countered. You could go with something weird like every thought of God constitutes a reality in itself, but there's a better explanation that actually answers a lot more questions that is to say "God's atemporal". I mean, ok, it breaks all logic down in a sense and makes further inquiry kinda hard, (but hey, isn't that the definition of an all powerfull being? "Something capable of telling all logic and knowlodge to just GTFO"?), but other than  that it's actually quite elegant.

A. But does Christianity in any way or form have any relation to reality, as it claims? Any system can be thought up to pass Immanent Critique, however religions have no value outside of themselves (which would be somethign necessary for a belief system claiming to perfectly explain the world). 

C1. Really? States as good by whom (not to mention that "it's good because I say it's good" is a logical error)? We were not referring to Christianity in this point, so you can't use Christianity as a referrence. We actually were not referring to any belief system whatsoever. I challenged you to prove that "helping others" is intrinsincly good, the same way being red is an intrinsic quality of fire ants. Of course, you will not be able to do this. "Goodness" is itself a subjective quality, which has no value outside a belief system. You can't prove that anything is objectively good.

C2. No, I was not discussing free will because it had nothing to do with my issue with his statement. One has to either follow god's laws to get into heaven, or repent for his/her "sins" (thus acknowledging god's laws and their superiority). People who disagree with god are doomed to eternity in hell, because what they think is irrelevant.There is no room for individuality in Christianity, because ultimately you have to renounce it if you want to be "with god".

Human laws are meant to assure a peaceful coexistence. They're meant to protect humans, and their individuality. If I find that a law is unfair, I can make attempts to change it. You cannot change god's laws, and they do not have human's best interest at heart.

D. There's no point in seeign a movie, if knowing what happens is all that matters. Why are agency or experiencing life important in the first place? If God loves everybody, then why does he send people to hell. You can say that those who reject him chose to go to hell, but does anyone want eternal suffering? God is the one who created hell, and made it so those who reject him go there, so can it be said that he loves everyone, when he condems those who don't love him to eternal torture?

Also, isn't your definition of immanent critique only limiting to internal critique?

Not true. Sci fi tells us that the future for humanity is a one world govt and a single currency. All the Earth based sci-fi I've read/seen has it that way, so it must be true. It's sci-fi authorss core business to predict the future and they are all pretty much agreed on these points.