Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I encapsulated what I understood to be the essence of BigMike's stated view. It is not my view.

So you do believe in objective truth, you say?

I believe that truth declarations, and references to absolute truths, are necessary constructs or necessary blocks within perception-systems. I'll go that far. It is more productive to understanding (of human systems) to approach the issue from this angle than to insist on and fight for absolutes.

In this sense though an 'absolute'' belief certainly exists. Meaning, such can be proposed. But it seems to me that to think in such terms follows a mathematical model. Or the mathematical model of absolute certainty or surety is applied, by zealously inclined minds, to issues and problems at a terrestrial level which are not amenable to forced impositions such as absolutisms are.

So when I describe you, fairly, as a religious fanatic and a zealot, I am making a reference to a system of thinking that you have *installed* or which has been installed in you which, to my way of seeing, is defective. Some of its errors are merely quaint or benign (as Promethean says). But there is another level that is more dangerous and that is when Power merges with Belief and expresses itself in absolutisms.

My larger point (which I wrote out but I doubt you read or can read) is that we are in a marginal area where the foundations of understanding have been undermined and we do not have a foundation within certainty on which to build and for this reason all we can do is bicker. But I also suppose (erroneously?) that at some point we will arrive at an agreed-upon definition set that will allow agreement and also *construction*.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's impossible.

Not at all. It is in fact what you have created for yourself. I'd like to lead you to other and I think better possibilities. Take one step toward me and I'll take a hundred toward you!

[Alexis Jacobi]

"militant musings of atomized particles in a decomposing conceptual order."

what's so bad about being a militantly musing group of atomized particles in a decomposing conceptual order (like BM and Dubi)?

Isn't your question a sort of defense of that state of being? Would you say that that is your state of being as well?

Is it fixed? Is it immutable?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, you are. I know what I think, and I know the Biblical definition; and so I don't need to ask about that.

No. All *conversation* with you is a sham. You do not engage in conversation. You can't! Once one learns this about you it changes how one responds to you. Some simply abandon all the ground to you and exit the possibility of conversation (thinking of Harry here).

I turn you into a useful mechanism because you serve my defined purposes (still). That is, I accept you as you are. I want to understand you at a granular level. What you are, the choices you make, and the reasons, must be better understood. They need to be seen clearly and fairly.

Your only purpose here, your sole purpose, your entire shtick, is in apologetics and preaching. You do venture into other categories of concern every once in awhile, that is true, but your elemental purpose is to post scriptural excerpts that express those truths and certitude to which you have bound yourself.

I encourage you to continue in that vein. In truth you are capable of nothing else.

[Immanuel Can]

I encapsulated what I understood to be the essence of BigMike's stated view. It is not my view.

So you do believe in objective truth, you say?

I believe that truth declarations, and references to absolute truths, are necessary constructs or necessary blocks within perception-systems. I'll go that far. It is more productive to understanding (of human systems) to approach the issue from this angle than to insist on and fight for absolutes.

And is the statement, "references to absolute truths, are necessary constructs or necessary blocks within perception-systems," true for everybody, or just for you?

In this sense though an 'absolute'' belief certainly exists. Meaning, such can be proposed.

That's not the question.

We know "belief...can exist." (Like belief in unicorns can exist, but unicorns don't.) What we need to know is, "can the thing you're believing in exist?"

So when I describe you, fairly, as a religious fanatic and a zealot

,
When you do, it remains as ad hominem and utterly irrelevant, as always. Even if true, it would be unimportant to the question.

... there is another level that is more dangerous and that is when Power merges with Belief and expresses itself in absolutisms.

That is true, but also irrelevant.

The abuse of an entity does not constitute an argument against its right use. You're arguing, "Murderers use knives, so we should ban surgeons using them."

If absolutes exist, then their right use is all-important; and saying that some people abuse belief in them does nothing to change that. And if they don't exist, you'll never be able to absolutely say.

...we do not have a foundation within certainty on which to build...

Then you cannot "build" that statement.

With no foundation, even the claim, "I have no foundation" falls down of its own weight. It's simply not objective or absolute. Maybe you have a foundation, but you're refusing to use it...how would we know, since "I have no foundation" is not an objective claim, according to you?

[Immanuel Can]

That's impossible.

Not at all.

Yeah, it is.

If you don't know what reason requires, that has zippo to do with me, either way. That's your own failing, then.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, you are. I know what I think, and I know the Biblical definition; and so I don't need to ask about that.

No.

Wait...you wrote: "Am I mistaken in my perception that you are aching to answer your own question? "

I said, "Yes, you are mistaken." I don't want that.

So you're now trying to tell me what I'm wanting?

No, I want you to give me YOUR definition. You're the one with the big theory about "Christendom." So you're the one who needs to define his terms.

I'm just amazed you find it so impossible to do. It should be the simplest and most basic thing, if your thesis actually refers to anything at all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're the one with the big theory about "Christendom." So you're the one who needs to define his terms.

Comment in depth on my ‘theory about Christendom’ and indicate that you understood what my thoughts were. If you do even reasonably well I may make an effort to answer some of your questions.

In the absence of that — you’ll get no cooperation. You are on extended probation!

[Immanuel Can]

You're the one with the big theory about "Christendom." So you're the one who needs to define his terms.

Comment in depth on my ‘theory about Christendom’

I don't need to.

The minute you use the word (the key term in your thesis), asking you, "What do you mean?" is perfectly in play. You should be able to say. If you can't...why not?

If you don't, or can't, it's perfectly reasonable for people simply to assume you don't know what you're talking about.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't need to.

You will have to. That is if you want any sort of cooperation from me. Get it?

I grant you no directive control in this conversation. You do not choose themes. You cannot *ask questions* and expect answers. You have yourself sacrificed all rights in these areas.

If you demonstrate that you can respond to any ideas or comments I express -- in a full manner, indicating that you have read, thought about and considered the ideas presented -- my attitude toward you will change instantly.

This applies until you modify your tactics:

All *conversation* with you is a sham. You do not engage in conversation. You can't! Once one learns this about you it changes how one responds to you. Some simply abandon all the ground to you and exit the possibility of conversation (thinking of Harry here).

Your only purpose here, your sole purpose, your entire shtick, is in apologetics and preaching. You do venture into other categories of concern every once in awhile, that is true, but your elemental purpose is to post scriptural excerpts that express those truths and certitude to which you have bound yourself.

I encourage you to continue in that vein. In truth you are capable of nothing else.

[Lacewing]

Is the psyche 'part of nature'? It is certainly part of what is real or what is manifest. But the psyche seems to draw down into the world of nature a realm of things that are not, not really, part of nature.

Nature is limited to ... nature. Nature can only do what nature does. But what we do is of another order (according to my way of seeing).

So, you're saying not only what 'we do' but what we are is of another order than nature? What order would that be? Plants and animals are nature. Weather systems are nature. Planets and distant galaxies are nature, yes? But we human beings are... what? We live and die and change/evolve like everything else. We exist in relation to, and because of, all of nature. But we're something else? Natural-born storytellers, we might imagine ourselves as uniquely aligned with gods ruling over nature. Yet, nature IS our source, is it not? Why would we think that nature is NOT representative of a greater energy?

Did we fly in on a spaceship and land here to rule? No, we grew from a little blob of goo and we'll turn into dirt when we're done. We are clearly part of all that we can see and know! This is BEAUTIFUL. All is complete and connected. Why not explore the potential and implications of that, rather than desiring superiority to it?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't need to.

You will have to. That is if you want any sort of cooperation from me. Get it?

I get that you're being unreasonable, yes.

You cannot *ask questions* and expect answers.

On a philosophy site?

If you demonstrate that you can respond to any ideas or comments I express...

-
I did. I want to know what your most basic term means. It's rationally impossible to say any more about your theory until I know that.

If you told me, "The decline of the West is caused by noobles," I'd have to ask you what "noobles" meant. It's the same with any other word: if you can't say what you mean, then you don't mean anything.

[Lacewing]

It's obvious that one can't "categorize" and "analyze" something one can't even recognize...

Yet YOU do it all the time, even if you must distort and lie to do it.

I.C., you seem to be quite adept at dancing around the distortions and lies you use, when they are pointed out to you, so that would suggest that you are aware of them. Why is it not possible to make/support your claims without using such tactics? Do you think that any tactic is allowable and/or necessary in support of your claims?

[Immanuel Can]

I.C., you seem to be quite adept at dancing around the distortions and lies you use...

Name one.

[Lacewing]

I.C., you seem to be quite adept at dancing around the distortions and lies you use...

Name one.

Read this thread for yourself -- they are pointed out to you continually, which you ignore. Are you aware, or are you in denial, or do you think all of these people are wrong (and it's not worth clarifying), or what?