Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

If I were being wry, I'd say that I know what this means: it means "Please stop being so right."

This is a 'self-assertion' that, it seems, expresses how you see yourself in regard to all who bring forward ideas that seem to contradict you. You can apply that statement to *all comers*.

So for the record I do not see you as being wrong, it is rather that I do not see you as being sufficiently right. It is a nuanced difference and one with consequence and implication.

[Immanuel Can]

My reference to Hamlet, and also to Shakespeare, was to a type of dynamic awareness.You totally missed the point.

Don't worry: I know what you were trying to say. I just found the "Word" rhapsodizing too far fetched to take me along. I can't get there.

And that's fair. I don't have to accept a set of assumptions, surely, simply because somebody floats one, do I?

Do you?

[Immanuel Can]

...for the record I do not see you as being wrong, it is rather that I do not see you as being sufficiently right. It is a nuanced difference and one with consequence and implication.

We're all fallible. And that's fair enough. But I may not at all be "wrong" in the ways you would think. And I don't think you can be unhappy with me for honestly pointing out areas in which I simply don't share your assumptions on some points. We get along well enough on others, and this is a discusison forum, after all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My reference to Hamlet, and also to Shakespeare, was to a type of dynamic awareness.You totally missed the point.

Don't worry: I know what you were trying to say. I just found the "Word" rhapsodizing too far fetched to take me along. I can't get there.

And that's fair. I don't have to accept a set of assumptions, surely, simply because somebody floats one, do I?

Do you?

Except that it is not far-fetched at all. You have a talent for putting the kibosh on ideas which disrupt your scheme. It is frustrating at times but it certainly doesn't stop me. To some degree I take your opposition as a sign of being on a valid, also perhaps a necessary, track. And this is all tremendously useful to me.

Out of curiosity have you read Steppenwolf? Do you have opinions on the nature of his struggle?

There is an author I wish more had read: Gerhart Hauptmann. The works that I find super-interesting, and which embody a confrontation with a new world of vision and understanding (of the world). They are The Heretic of Soana (1923) and Phantom (1922). Phantom because it describes an encounter with deep-seated desire that results in gaining knowledge (which illuminates how we in fact learn in life), and Heretic because it describes a religious and Christian man who confronts the fullness of life within nature and experience that contradicts the association of 'earthly things' with evil. Now I am going to have to read them again . . . The point is that this is a man who, Nietzsche-like or Nietzsche-inspired, had to review and revise their 'spiritual' notions. It is part of a Germanic project (and it certainly began with Luther).

[Alexis Jacobi]

We're all fallible. And that's fair enough. But I may not at all be "wrong" in the ways you would think. And I don't think you can be unhappy with me for honestly pointing out areas in which I simply don't share your assumptions on some points. We get along well enough on others, and this is a discusison forum, after all.

I have no rancor not even a minimal amount. I accept certain things on an inner level which I cannot accept in relation to the outer level. What requires delicacy is keeping the two sufficiently separated.

[Immanuel Can]

You have a talent for putting the kibosh on ideas which disrupt your scheme.

No, but I never feel inclined to tell somebody I agree with them when I don't. I'm funny that way.

But I think you'd rather have that than the opposite.

Out of curiosity have you read Steppenwolf? Do you have opinions on the nature of his struggle?

I have not, I confess.

[Dubious]

There is an author I wish more had read: Gerhart Hauptmann. The works that I find super-interesting, and which embody a confrontation with a new world of vision and understanding (of the world). They are The Heretic of Soana (1923) and Phantom (1922). Phantom because it describes an encounter with deep-seated desire that results in gaining knowledge (which illuminates how we in fact learn in life), and Heretic because it describes a religious and Christian man who confronts the fullness of life within nature and experience that contradicts the association of 'earthly things' with evil. Now I am going to have to read them again . . . The point is that this is a man who, Nietzsche-like or Nietzsche-inspired, had to review and revise their 'spiritual' notions. It is part of a Germanic project (and it certainly began with Luther).

Though the post wasn't addressed to me, all I wish to say is thank-you for mentioning Gerhart Hauptmann and the two novels quoted. I was looking for something fictional to read while innately expressing its own philosophy which German fiction seldom avoids and often excels in. In effect, where thought perspectives denote the plot merely as container, the latter being secondary to its more philosophical motives.

Nietzsche, Wagner and Schopenhauer would have been the main influencers to that kind of genre.

I have read Steppenwolf in English and German and found the Harry Haller types to be extremely rare these days. Before the novel was written, I imagine there must have been more of that nature who fail to adapt to modern times and tastes...a dichotomy with much potential to breed a deeply entrenched neurosis. I regard the novel as half autobiographical. Personally among Hesse's works I prefer in style and content Narziß und Goldmund which I plan to read again.

Now I have Gerhart Hauptmann to add. I knew who he was but never inquired into his works since I rarely read novels.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Though the post wasn't addressed to me, all I wish to say is thank-you for mentioning Gerhart Hauptmann and the two novels quoted. I was looking for something fictional to read while innately expressing its own philosophy which German fiction seldom avoids and often excels in.

That's great. I'm glad to have made the recommendation in that case.

[attofishpi]

Just though I'd make my own 'definition' of what it is to be Christian, what Christianity entails.

Belief in Jesus Christ (what he said and did).

Belief in the 10 commandments.

Living according to the above.

[promethean75]

"the Ten Commandments were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai and inscribed by the finger of God on two tablets of stone"

Suuuure they were.

I don't know which is worse; some ancient quack claiming to have had a convo with god on a mountain somewhere, or a world that actually still believes this nonsense thousands of years later.

It's for this very reason that I will take every precaution to not live by the ten commandments. And if there is a god, I hope the shady sonofabitch is watchin.

[attofishpi]

Clueless shmuck.

[seeds]

The first thing that needs to happen is that whenever you hear the word "God," you need to stop visualizing this anthropomorphic nonsense...

It's logical and even reasonable to assume that an organized entity like the universe and all of its contained intelligences must have been created by a greater one. There is nothing illogical about such an idea. It begins with a god incipience or Cause whose blueprint establishes a chain of future causes. Sounds reasonable enough.

But should that preclude any probability of a very different process happening in establishing the same outcome reason normally defaults to?

If that "very different process" is dependent on the blind and mindless processes of chance, then YES, it is definitely precluded.

It is entropy, time and emergence which create the conditions of complexity which manifests itself in both micro and macro perspectives.

Easy to say, but impossible to imagine it occurring without some sort of guidance or teleological impetus.

It's a process which proceeds on its own on multiple levels, the Intelligence required already contained in it.

From whence did the disparate and chaotically dispersed quantum phenomena implicit in the aftermath of an alleged Big Bang, metaphorically depicted as this...



...acquire the "intelligence" to organize itself into the absolute perfect setting, depicted as this...



...from which life, mind, and consciousness could then effloresce (emerge) from the very fabric of the setting itself?

Every process contains a paradigm formed by an intelligence which doesn't have to be self-aware to be active.

Again, I'm having a difficult time imagining the presence of "intelligence" in the midst of this...



Your assertion is reminding me of one of my favorite cartoons...



_______

It's not easy to imagine a lack of teleological impulse but it's not impossible.

Okay, let's hear how you have imagined it.

Anthropomorphising the Almighty includes presuming the Almighty intervenes in history to steer the course of history otherwise than the original determination. After all, intentional interventions is what people do, not what the Almighty does.

Sez who?
_______

[uwot]

And you don't think that atheists trivialize theists?

That's whataboutism seeds. You're better than that.

And you don't think that it's a problem for anyone trying to present an updated and fairly plausible explanation for what the creative source of the universe "might" be...

A thing beyond our experience and comprehension "might" be anything. Sorry mate, but you are in the same boat as anyone else who is trying to interpret this universe in fairly plausible way. Over two thousand years ago Cicero said "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it." These days we might add scientists. Exactly the same world that presents itself to you can be explained by who knows how many updated and fairly plausible explanations. Frankly, I don't think we should discount implausible explanations; whatever the truth about reality, it is something 'miraculous'.

I suggest that any argument that leans toward something intelligent being responsible for the creation of the universe is infinitely more compelling than arguments that rely on the absurdity of the "chance" hypothesis.

Suggestion noted.

That being said, what sort of "evidence" would you, yourself, require to compel you over onto my side of the agnostic fence you seem to be straddling?

And lose my sense of wonder and mystery? No thanks.

[seeds]

And you don't think that atheists trivialize theists?

That's whataboutism seeds.

There's nothing wrong with a good ol' whataboutism once in a while, especially if it's valid.

You're better than that.

Nah, I'll resort to any cheap trick to make a point.

And you don't think that it's a problem for anyone trying to present an updated and fairly plausible explanation for what the creative source of the universe "might" be...

A thing beyond our experience and comprehension "might" be anything. Sorry mate, but you are in the same boat as anyone else who is trying to interpret this universe in fairly plausible way. Over two thousand yards ago Cicero said "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it." These days we might add scientists.

Come on now, uwot, two thousand yards ago is only 1.136 miles ago. That doesn't seem very long. When I was a kid, me and my brother used to walk that far in the rain and snow to get to school....

...(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

Anyway, Cicero didn't have the benefit of modern-day quantum theory seeming to validate idealism in that it loosely suggests that matter is made of "mind-stuff."

The point is that when it comes to philosophizing about the nature of reality, what minds could conceive of two thousand yards ago was quite limited compared to what minds can conceive of at our present mile-marker...

...(I'll be here all week; please try the veal and don't forget to tip the waitresses ).

Exactly the same world that presents itself to you can be explained by who knows how many updated and fairly plausible explanations.

Name just one plausible explanation (aside from the ridiculous "computer simulation hypothesis") that doesn't have the "chance hypothesis" as its foundation.
_______

[uwot]

There's nothing wrong with a good ol' whataboutism once in a while, especially if it's valid.

seeds me old mucker, most 6 year olds could tell you that two wrongs don't make a right.

Cicero didn't have the benefit of modern-day quantum theory seeming to validate idealism in that it loosely suggests that matter is made of "mind-stuff."

Well, first you have to pick your interpretation of quantum mechanics, then you have to choose how to interpret that interpretation. And there's the rub: what do you base that choice on?

The point is that when it comes to philosophizing about the nature of reality, what minds could conceive of two thousand yards ago was quite limited compared to what minds can conceive of at our present mile-marker...

The choice is exactly the same. Either the world was designed, or it wasn't.

Exactly the same world that presents itself to you can be explained by who knows how many updated and fairly plausible explanations.

Name just one plausible explanation (aside from the ridiculous "computer simulation hypothesis") that doesn't have the "chance hypothesis" as its foundation.

Coupla things seeds: 1. Pretending that in the very next sentence I didn't say

Frankly, I don't think we should discount implausible explanations; whatever the truth about reality, it is something 'miraculous'.

is a cheap trick even for someone who admits they resort to cheap tricks. 2. More to the point, what criteria are you using for plausibility? Is "loosely suggests" where you set your bar?