The 'coercive bargain' theory of Christianity.

[2PhiloVoid]

Good. I am glad we are agreed thus far: that Christianity posits a coercive system of social control.

Whoa! Hold on there cowboy! Do you notice there are words you've articulated which I haven't parroted back to you? Obviously, you either didn't notice or you've nonchalantly proceeded to ignore this fact and move on in the attempt to steamroll me. I'd suggest you stop while you're behind.

I never said Christianity posits a coercive system of social control. It's YOU who is saying this. So, please stop conflating what it is you've failed to pay attention to in what I've said with what it is you're wanting all too eagerly to assert here.

Learn to discern a bit better or here is what's going to happen: I'm going to tear your little argument apart, sentence by sentence, bit by bit. And I'll feel no shame in doing so. NONE: AS in ZERO!!

Perhaps we can now move on to my next question: Would a perfectly, infinitely good God institute such a system? (especially since, in all other regards, He seems to place a very high premium indeed on our freedom?)

Yours is an obviously unfounded, illegitimate question. It's also one that is driven by today's liberal pearl clutching.

Seems to me you have two choices: yes He would, in which case you need some sort of an apologetic to explain Him, or, no He wouldn't, in which case we need to rethink Christianity.

Best wishes, Strivax.

I need no apologetic since it's not my job to explain God. No, that's God's job and if He's not showing up in person to do so and remains Hidden from the world en masse---as Pascal and others suggest that He thus remains---then that puts us all in a quandry, doesn't it? It means none of us gets to dictate a plenary "God definition" all by our lonesome and apart from what's been revealed through the Christian Church. Otherwise, you're just shuffling furniture on the deck of the Lusitania, also known as "the Philosopher's god," another one of history's Titanic blunders.

And do remember, I'm an Existentialist, so I'm not going to play by your silly rules. I don't have to. And so I won't. You can thank Wittgenstein for this the next time you see him.

 

[Neogaia777]

Good. I am glad we are agreed thus far: that Christianity posits a coercive system of social control.

Perhaps we can now move on to my next question: Would a perfectly, infinitely good God institute such a system? (especially since, in all other regards, He seems to place a very high premium indeed on our freedom?)

Seems to me you have two choices: yes He would, in which case you need some sort of an apologetic to explain Him, or, no He wouldn't, in which case we need to rethink Christianity.

Best wishes, Strivax.

The "price", which has already been paid by someone under the NC (Jesus Christ), is mainly due to the angels, and mainly the fallen angels, demands, in order to see Him as infinitely good in all of what He does, and has done, and plans on continuing to be doing in the future, etc, and in order for us to see it in or by the end, etc, and the only price that remains for us in the meantime, etc, is to love, and put our faith and hope and trust in, the one who paid, etc, and to glorify that one in our hearts before Him (God), when (or until that time) when we will see how infinitely good He (God) is, by and through him (Jesus Christ), in or by the end (through and by Jesus Christ), etc...

And the only apologetic that is needed is only due to man being unable to explain Him or know the real true truth about Him all of these years, etc, because the truth is there, because God made sure to put it out there, for those who are truly 100% objective about it, and that are fully willing to truly and fully see it, etc...

And yes, many people/man/humanity, etc, needs to rethink where he or she has misunderstood Christ and God and Christianity, in error, all these years, and needs to know that the "why" to that, is only because of their own pride/ego/error, and is not because the truth was not there, or hasn't been fully staring them straight in the face all of these years, etc...

Man has an inherent ability to not ever be 100% logical/objective, and that is where they have gone astray, or is why/where they have been/gone in error all of these years, etc...

And I very much doubt that you, and others like you @Strivax, have the ability to truly be 100% objective right now either, etc...

As I've certainly seen absolutely none of it out of any of you on here or out there in the world yet thus far, although some do 100% and geuniely truly, do try, etc, but there is almost always usually some kind of bias or prejudice of some kind, which creates error, etc...

Truly neutral and objective lenses, especially among man or humankind, are 1 out of 100 billion, most of the time...

God Bless!

 

[Strivax]

Whoa! Hold on there cowboy! Do you notice there are words you've articulated which I haven't parroted back to you? Obviously, you either didn't notice or you've nonchalantly proceeded to ignore this fact and move on in the attempt to steamroll me. I'd suggest you stop while you're behind.

I never said Christianity posits a coercive system of social control. It's YOU who is saying this. So, please stop conflating what it is you've failed to pay attention to in what I've said with what it is you're wanting all too eagerly to assert here.

Learn to discern a bit better or here is what's going to happen: I'm going to tear your little argument apart, sentence by sentence, bit by bit. And I'll feel no shame in doing so. NONE: AS in ZERO!!

Yours is an obviously unfounded, illegitimate question. It's also one that is driven by today's liberal pearl clutching.

I need no apologetic since it's not my job to explain God. No, that's God's job and if He's not showing up in person to do so and remains Hidden from the world en masse---as Pascal and others suggest that He thus remains---then that puts us all in a quandry, doesn't it? It means none of us gets to dictate a plenary "God definition" all by our lonesome and apart from what's been revealed through the Christian Church. Otherwise, you're just shuffling furniture on the deck of the Lusitania, also known as "the Philosopher's god," another one of history's Titanic blunders.

And do remember, I'm an Existentialist, so I'm not going to play by your silly rules. I don't have to. And so I won't. You can thank Wittgenstein for this the next time you see him.

Hmmmm. Everything I said follows logically. Surely even an existentialist can appreciate logic? And for all His word games, even Wittgenstein seemed bound by it's rules. When you can show where my logic is at fault, we may have something to discuss. 'Til then I can only assume your objections are down to your distaste for the conclusions, and nothing more substantial than than that. Certainly, you have given no indication otherwise.

Best wishes, Strivax.

PS. And unlike Wittgenstein, I am not playing word-games. My work is the salvation of man, (and woman), which can arise only accidentally out of a error-prone religion. S.

 

[Strivax]

And I very much doubt that you, and others like you @Strivax, have the ability to truly be 100% objective right now either, etc...

I do not claim to be 100% objective, neutral, etc, about this matter or any other. But, the thing about humanity I have noticed, is that we all see things from a different point of view, and bring to bear different experiences and backgrounds. And thus, in a free society, we can build on our virtues, and compensate for each other's flaws. And in that way, we can approach accuracy, collectively.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmmmm. Everything I said follows logically.

No, I think it doesn't follow in the least. It does follow if you're on the rusty path to atheism. That's usually where your sort of argument ends up.

Surely even an existentialist can appreciate logic?

Yep. Probably more than you do.

And for all His word games, even Wittgenstein seemed bound by it's rules. When you can show where my logic is at fault, we may have something to discuss. 'Til then I can only assume your objections are down to your distaste for the conclusions, and nothing more substantial than than that. Certainly, you have given no indication otherwise.

No. You don't seem to be listening and instead offer only the all too typical grandstand and facepalming that Liberals and Atheists tend to give. Since that's the route you want to go, then I intend to return the favor.

Best wishes, Strivax.

PS. And unlike Wittgenstein, I am not playing word-games. My work is the salvation of man, (and woman), which can arise only accidentally out of a error-prone religion. S.

You seem to enjoy the nonsensical. Have yourself a full year of it........................buddy.

 

[Strivax]

As usual, from you, plenty of criticism, but nothing substantial. Just the 'I don't like it, therefore it must be wrong' school of philosophy.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Neogaia777]

I do not claim to be 100% objective, neutral, etc, about this matter or any other. But, the thing about humanity I have noticed, is that we all see things from a different point of view, and bring to bear different experiences and backgrounds. And thus, in a free society, we can build on our virtues, and compensate for each other's flaws. And in that way, we can approach accuracy, collectively.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Well, I live in a vacuum, or a bubble now, and have for a while now, for that is my life now, etc, and maybe that is why I have been able to do/see some of these things of late, I don't know, etc, but it sure does change the way you look at things, living this way, etc, and sure does change the way you look at like, "everything", etc...

But it wasn't this way for me always, I had a life once, etc, and at or during those times, I had just as much of a very hard time with this as the many of the rest of you still do, etc...

Anyway, enough of my looking back on the past...

I'm going back to playing my video game for a while now...

God Bless!

 

[Strivax]

No, I think it doesn't follow in the least. It does follow if you're on the rusty path to atheism. That's usually where your sort of argument ends up.

Well, surprising as it may seem to you, my goal is to strengthen Christianity, not weaken it. If you criticise a line of thinking, one of two things can happen. A) The criticism is shown to be invalid. The original line of thinking then stands the stronger, for having withstood the criticism. B) The criticism is shown to be valid. The original line of thinking must then be modified, to encompass the criticism. Once modified, the line of thinking is the stronger, since it is no longer subject to the same criticsm. Of course, both these outcomes require a degree of engagement with the criticism, which is something you have so far not shown willing to countenance.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, I live in a vacuum, or a bubble now, and have for a while now, for that is my life now, etc, and maybe that is why I have been able to do/see some of these things of late, I don't know, etc, but it sure does change the way you look at things, living this way, etc, and sure does change the way you look at like, "everything", etc...

But it wasn't this way for me always, I had a life once, etc, and at or during those times, I had just as much of a very hard time with this as the many of the rest of you still do, etc...

Anyway, enough of my looking back on the past...

I'm going back to playing my video game for a while now...

God Bless!

Don't get me wrong, I don't regret a thing, as I have pretty much done and fully experienced it all already, etc, all that this life has to offer anyway, etc, and what I have gained far, far outweighs anything I might have lost, I am very, very blessed, and I am very much forever grateful, etc, and I have also come to the conclusion that God meant for me to be here, and this be my life now, for the amount of time it has been my life now, etc, and I think this is so I could see things from this very, very unique perspective and point of view with Him before I die, etc, and so that we could go through the rest of my life this way together, etc, some men go their entire lives; many, many men or people actually, only wishing they could see what I see now, or to have found what I have found now, etc, so how could I ever in a million years ever regret it, or ever regret a thing like that, etc, I would have to be a fool, etc, so I don't regret any of it at all not even one bit, etc, and I have Him now also, etc, and we (all) know each other, etc, which is a treasure beyond compare, etc...

Anyhow...

Anyhow, and I just want to share this with the rest of you, etc...

Because, man, wouldn't that be something, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Strivax]

@Neogaia777

I am glad you have found your contentment. I wish nothing less for anyone.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, surprising as it may seem to you, my goal is to strengthen Christianity, not weaken it. If you criticise a line of thinking, one of two things can happen. A) The criticism is shown to be invalid. The original line of thinking then stands the stronger, for having withstood the criticism. B) The criticism is shown to be valid. The original line of thinking must then be modified, to encompass the criticism. Once modified, the line of thinking is the stronger, since it is no longer subject to the same criticsm. Of course, both these outcomes require a degree of engagement with the criticism, which is something you have so far not shown willing to countenance.

Best wishes, Strivax.

And just like so many others on this entire forum (or now in society on the whole), I'm learning now to avoid wasting time by engaging with those who have little or no intention of reciprocating and engaging my viewpoint.

It's that simple.

It's also as simple as a degree in Philosophy and/or Social Science enables it to be. It's also as simple as recognizing that the God of the Philosophers FAILS to be a coherent concept. It's also as simple as recognizing that the fragmentary notions we have about the nature of the God of the Bible also isn't copacetic with today's morally inclined, democratic World paradigm. It's also as simple as the fact that I don't have to give an apology for the God of the Bible, especially when it's already been done by so many other Christians and in ways that I don't think blow away the ethical miasma that everyone is so choked up over.

Moreover, if you can't SEE that I've already disemboweled the first premise which you've attempted to swat all to casually to the side and by which you earlier proceeded to steamroll me, then that's a psychological indicator to me that you have zero intention of engaging my side of things if and when I present my supporting points---just like the atheists used to do with whom I all too frequently ran loggerheads with here on CF and elsewhere.

So, give me a reason why I should spend some time discussing this concern you have with "social advocacy PLUS," with that reason NOT being merely one that attempts to obfuscate, facepalm, steamroll, circumvent, preempt or sabotage any initial contentions and misgivings I may have with your viewpoint.

Can you do this? If not, then I see no justification to further any interlocution with you on this issue.

Reference

Capaldi, Nicholas. How to Win Every Argument: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. MJF Books, 1971.

 

[Strivax]

And just like so many others on this entire forum (or now in society on the whole), I'm learning now to avoid wasting time by engaging with those who have little or no intention of reciprocating and engaging my viewpoint.

It's that simple.

It's also as simple as a degree in Philosophy and/or Social Science enables it to be. It's also as simple as recognizing that the God of the Philosophers FAILS to be a coherent concept. It's also as simple as recognizing that the fragmentary notions we have about the nature of the God of the Bible also isn't copacetic with today's morally inclined, democratic World paradigm. It's also as simple as the fact that I don't have to give an apology for the God of the Bible, especially when it's already been done by so many other Christians and in ways that I don't think blow away the ethical miasma that everyone is so choked up over.

Moreover, if you can't SEE that I've already disemboweled the first premise which you've attempted to swat all to casually to the side and by which you earlier proceeded to steamroll me, then that's a psychological indicator to me that you have zero intention of engaging my side of things if and when I present my supporting points---just like the atheists used to do with whom I all too frequently ran loggerheads with here on CF and elsewhere.

So, give me a reason why I should spend some time discussing this concern you have with "social advocacy PLUS," with that reason NOT being merely one that attempts to obfuscate, facepalm, steamroll, circumvent, preempt or sabotage any initial contentions and misgivings I may have with your viewpoint.

Can you do this? If not, then I see no justification to further any interlocution with you on this issue.

Reference

Capaldi, Nicholas. How to Win Every Argument: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. MJF Books, 1971.

So I doubt very much you have ever studied philosophy. Or, if you have, you left the course without gaining the slightest inkling into what makes and breaks an argument, and so utterly wasted your time. So, go howl at the moon if that is what you wish to do. I have no intention of trying to educate you further. I have better things to do with my time.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So I doubt very much you have ever studied philosophy. Or, if you have, you left the course without gaining the slightest inkling into what makes and breaks an argument, and so utterly wasted your time. So, howl at the moon if that is what you wish to do. I have no intention of trying to educate you further. I have better things to do with my time.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Just keep thinking all of that. Be my guest. And save me the token-esque "best wishes."

 

[Strivax]

It is an unfortunate feature of ignorance, that it does not know it's own state.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Astrid]

So I doubt very much you have ever studied philosophy. Or, if you have, you left the course without gaining the slightest inkling into what makes and breaks an argument, and so utterly wasted your time. So, howl at the moon if that is what you wish to do. I have no intention of trying to educate you further. I have better things to do with my time.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Similarly likewise

It is an unfortunate feature of ignorance, that it does not know it's own state.

Best wishes, Strivax.

" A man has to know his limitations"

 

[Strivax]

Similarly likewise

" A man has to know his limitations"

Oh, that was just a throwaway observation, that applies as much to me as to anyone else.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[Astrid]

Oh, that was just a throwaway observation, that applies as much to me as to anyone else.

Best wishes, Strivax

Not to me.

 

[FireDragon76]

I take your point about discipline, which is why I recommended the pursuit of virtue for it's own sake, not for the carrot of reward or stick of punishment. Those that do so, can, I think safely forget about heaven and hell, get on with their lives, and if they do, eventually, end up in heaven, regard it as an unexpected bonus.

Best wishes, Strivax.

That's why the oldest forms of Christianity are ultimately about divinization, which is something mystical rather than transactional or juridical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is an unfortunate feature of ignorance, that it does not know it's own state.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Yes, that is an unfortunate feature of ignorance. Fortunately, I can admit that I owe a small apology to you. So, I'm sorry if I was a little ascerbic in those last several posts. I just don't like being misunderstood and then summarily dismissed out of hand when I voice my first sentence or two of disagreement, such as I did with my "lighter fluid" witticism back up in post #149.

The 'coercive bargain' theory of Christianity.

AFAIK God has always been against cold blooded murder and always been ok with killing to survive. Whether that is taking human life in self-defense, or other animal life or plant life. It is often necessary in order to remain a viable biological entity. But all that has no bearing on your...

www.christianforums.com

It probably would have set up things better between us if you had simply asked me what I meant by my witticism instead of proceeding all to quickly to jump to conclusions and infer something in my meaning that wasn't there in the slightest.

We might even find it very useful to consider how Ray Bradbury's book, Fahrenheit 451, applies to my witticism.

So, maybe we can start over and I'll make the attempt (with no guarantees) that I'll go easier on your OP proposal?

 

[Strivax]

Been thinking about this discipline idea, the idea that's this coercive system was instituted by God to teach us right from wrong. I reject that notion for two reasons: A) God seems quite content to leave any necessary discipline to us, and B) because reward and punishment are applied posthumously, by which time it is no longer possible to learn from our mistakes, and correct them.

Best wishes, Strivax