Christianity

[Harbal]

I'd start by asking you what the source of this "brimming" was...what made you "brim" to have something to believe in. And I'd start there, because I'd want to know what was really on the mind of the person I was talking to, in order to be relevant to his/her root concern, whatever it was.

Well I have a sense that the reality I perceive is just a processed version of a more fundamental reality that has been filtered through my limited senses and presented to my consciousness in a form that I am able to make sense of. I long to know (just curious, really) what is beneath my tip of the iceberg acquaintance with reality.

It is an ancient text, true. But what gives you the conclusion that none has any particular "claim to be taken more seriously than any of the others?" Would you argue, for example, that we should be as dismissive of the writings of Heroditus (who is regarded as "the father of History") as you would be of, say, the contemporaneous Myth of Erysichthon (whom the ancient Greeks describe as eating himself)? Or would you be willing to accord to one sort of ancient text a greater credibility than another?

I can't respond to your question about Heroditus and the Myth of Erysichthon, due to my complete ignorance of both. The trouble with ancient texts is that they were written by ancient people who, not having the knowledge we have today, tended to account for things by using their imaginations rather than the tools and techniques of science. When one also takes into account the inevitable errors that are bound to occure in the translation and interpretation of such texts we are left with very little, if anything, that can be trusted as truth or fact. There is also the possibility that some of the authors were out right lying. We can never know for sure. If truth is what we really seek, we cannot let ancient texts influence us.

[Immanuel Can]

I'd start by asking you what the source of this "brimming" was...what made you "brim" to have something to believe in. And I'd start there, because I'd want to know what was really on the mind of the person I was talking to, in order to be relevant to his/her root concern, whatever it was.

Well I have a sense that the reality I perceive is just a processed version of a more fundamental reality that has been filtered through my limited senses and presented to my consciousness in a form that I am able to make sense of. I long to know (just curious, really) what is beneath my tip of the iceberg acquaintance with reality.

I find that very interesting. Thanks for explaining.

It is an ancient text, true. But what gives you the conclusion that none has any particular "claim to be taken more seriously than any of the others?" Would you argue, for example, that we should be as dismissive of the writings of Heroditus (who is regarded as "the father of History") as you would be of, say, the contemporaneous Myth of Erysichthon (whom the ancient Greeks describe as eating himself)? Or would you be willing to accord to one sort of ancient text a greater credibility than another?

I can't respond to your question about Heroditus and the Myth of Erysichthon, due to my complete ignorance of both.

Well, I think you get the gist of the question, though, right? Not all documents from any given period would we weigh the same...does not that seem fair?

The trouble with ancient texts is that they were written by ancient people who, not having the knowledge we have today, tended to account for things by using their imaginations rather than the tools and techniques of science.

That's true.

And when, for instance, Aristotle thinks there are four "humours" in the body, or some such thing, we know it's his lack of our scientific awareness of biology that is at fault. Fair enough. However, that obviously doesn't imply that Aristotle was always wrong. As it turns out, he was right about a whole bunch of things, such as the basic laws of logic, and so forth. And, if God had told Aristotle something, I would think he would be right about that, too. But so far as we know, God didn't tell Aristotle anything, and nobody even supposes He did.

That's a little different from the claim that there's no way that the real God could be the God of the Bible, though, which was my earlier question. I'm still not seeing reason for that.

When one also takes into account the inevitable errors that are bound to occure in the translation and interpretation of such texts we are left with very little, if anything, that can be trusted as truth or fact.

Well, I do a lot of translation. And I can tell you for sure, that's not how translation works. It doesn't turn facts into falsehoods, or vice versa. Such challenges as there are in translation merely involve how one word or idiom in one language is to be reinterpreted into another language and made comprehensible to a new culture.

There is also the possibility that some of the authors were out right lying. We can never know for sure.

But that's not particular to ancient texts. That's the same as what our pal George tells us today. We don't know if he's lying, so we investigate.

If truth is what we really seek, we cannot let ancient texts influence us.

I can't imagine why you think that's obvious. Is it your idea that ancient texts were never right, or that a text becomes somehow less reliable merely by having been around for awhile?

In fact, there's an opposite argument to be made; that things that have endured, particularly under heavy scrutiny, for thousands of years, are far more probably reliable in universally important matters than the very latest op ed in the Daily Mail or the Nottingham Post.

[Harbal]

When one also takes into account the inevitable errors that are bound to occure in the translation and interpretation of such texts we are left with very little, if anything, that can be trusted as truth or fact.

Well, I do a lot of translation. And I can tell you for sure, that's not how translation works. It doesn't turn facts into falsehoods, or vice versa. Such challenges as there are in translation merely involve how one word or idiom in one language is to be reinterpreted into another language and made comprehensible to a new culture.

I don't do any translation, so I cannot speak with the authority you seem to have, but I remain unconvinced that the veracity of translated ancient text can be trusted. Apart from the problems I have already mentioned, it is often the case that very old material is damaged, or has parts missing altogether, leaving gaps, the content of which can only be guessed at. And the meaning of words is sometimes ambiguous, not to mention that their meaning can sometimes change over relatively short periods of time. The word "gay" is a modern example of that. I believe there are things in Shakespeare that are subject to dispute over meaning, and that was only written a few hundred years ago. And, while thinking of Shakespeare, how can we be sure that at least some of the Bible wasn't written as fiction?

The reasons I give for not putting faith in ancient writings have not been presented in an attempt to influence anyone's opinion, they are only intended to explain the reason for my own attitude, and, in that respect, rely on no one else's acceptance of their validity.

[Immanuel Can]

When one also takes into account the inevitable errors that are bound to occure in the translation and interpretation of such texts we are left with very little, if anything, that can be trusted as truth or fact.

Well, I do a lot of translation. And I can tell you for sure, that's not how translation works. It doesn't turn facts into falsehoods, or vice versa. Such challenges as there are in translation merely involve how one word or idiom in one language is to be reinterpreted into another language and made comprehensible to a new culture.

I don't do any translation, so I cannot speak with the authority you seem to have, but I remain unconvinced that the veracity of translated ancient text can be trusted.

Well, there's ways of checking, if you have doubts. And one further thing: the most translated document, by far, in the entire history of the world, is the Bible. More translators, better translators and more scholarly ones, have looked at those manuscripts than any translation on Earth. So if any document has been gone over, that's it.

Apart from the problems I have already mentioned, it is often the case that very old material is damaged, or has parts missing altogether, leaving gaps, the content of which can only be guessed at.

That can happen in single documents. Fortunately for the Biblical translators, they have tons of manuscripts and copies.

And the meaning of words is sometimes ambiguous, not to mention that their meaning can sometimes change over relatively short periods of time. The word "gay" is a modern example of that. I believe there are things in Shakespeare that are subject to dispute over meaning, and that was only written a few hundred years ago.

Shakespeare isn't actually all that under dispute, but okay. What is true is that modern, less-specialist people still struggle with Shakespearean English.

And, while thinking of Shakespeare, how can we be sure that at least some of the Bible wasn't written as fiction?

Some of it was. The Bible contains fictional incidents, designated as such. The parables, for instance. But the only cases we'd have to worry about is where something isn't clearly designated that way. I don't know how many of them you could worry about, though. There's been so much scholarship and examination of the text, I can't think of any ready examples myself.

The reasons I give for not putting faith in ancient writings have not been presented in an attempt to influence anyone's opinion, they are only intended to explain the reason for my own attitude, and, in that respect, rely on no one else's acceptance of their validity.

Well, fair enough. I think most of the worries you express are not necessary, though.

[seeds]

...because Marxian ideas and policies must be fought against, the first order of business is in seeing how deeply they have penetrated in our society and, most importantly, in our perception and our ideology. This is a work of critical self-analysis. It involves dismantling of idea-constructs and then reforming them along different lines.

What complicates this process is that anti-Communism and anti-Socialism were European movements in the 20th century. National Socialism and Italian Fascism were 'responses' to the Communist and Marxist threat. And so at the same time is ideological conservatism. And this is why one of the very powerful and common devices of Left-Progressives is to define anyone even remotely conservative as Nazi-esque. All you need to do is to examine one of Seed's recent posts. He employs the imago of Hitler as a (powerful and effective) symbol of an Ontological Malevolence that he is pretty sure that he can manage effectively. Hitler, in my view, has come to serve a function as a veritable Satanic figure....

Well, in that same post, I also "employed the imago" of these boneheads...



...and in an earlier post I employed this imago...



...all of which...

(in the spirit of "a picture is worth a thousand words")

...was to drive home the point that the darkness and hatefulness implicit in those images has its roots (its foundational underpinning) in precisely the same sort of thinking that you...

(or at least of those you have been recommending to us)

...seem to be promoting.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

. . . he [iambiguous] was simply trying to hold up a mirror to AJ's white nationalist views.

Indeed, you [phyllo] are guilty of doing to iambiguous precisely what attofishpi did to me and Harry Baird a while back where, even though I have been a champion of the fact that all human souls are absolutely equal to one another and that racism is the result of low consciousness...

You have misrepresented my views. This is a standard and common tactic used (most often) by Progressive/Left types. I use that designation (Progressive/Left) for convenience sakes.

You are free to champion what you wish. I do not disagree about human souls being equal. But no part of any argument I’ve made has to do with souls.

Yes, and that's the problem.

Indeed, that's one of the primary differences between us.

For (in a nutshell) you...

(or at least the Jonathan Bowden's and the Renaud Camus's, for example, that you recommend we pay attention to)

...completely ignore the possibility of the eternalness of a human soul.

Indeed, the people you say you "side with" seem to view humans from the superficial perspective of being nothing more than bodies that need to be divided into separate groups based on skin color and other minor variances, along with some silly sense of national heritage they were -- by sheer chance -- born into.

While I, on the other hand, view human bodies as being nothing more than a temporary "placental-like" phenomenon that will be discarded like so much "afterbirth" at the moment of death...



Now, it goes without saying that I could be utterly delusional about all of this.

However, the point is that after viewing the human soul from such a lofty perspective, I simply refuse to be pulled down into tiny minded (low conscious) arguments about the logic and merits of maintaining racial purity, or some ridiculous worrying about the problem of the white race losing its "majority status" somewhere in the world.

At the risk of coming off as some senile old man who keeps repeating stuff that he's already stated over and over again,...

...as crazy as this may sound, I view all of this nonsense regarding the need to maintain racial purity as being the metaphorical equivalent of getting all worked up over the color and shape of this glob of bloody visceral tissue...



...as opposed to paying attention to the infinitely more wondrous and important item that was just delivered out of it a few moments earlier.

In other words,...

(and to put this into the higher perspective I am aiming for)

...if you can just imagine the infinitely more wondrous item that was delivered out of this...



...a "few moments" earlier, then you will understand how silly it is to think that the "whiteness" or "blackness" or "redness" or "yellowness," etc., of that discarded glob of tissue held any significance whatsoever with respect to the treasure that was once held within its folds.

Now, even if I am misconstruing and misrepresenting what you and your philosophical heroes are saying, I highly doubt that you or they have approached the issue from the perspective I've laid out above.

Your views are closer to, and borne out of, aggressive Americanism and it civil imposition. Others do not share this zealousness. My advice: examine yourself. In conversation with me you’d have to.

Aww, horse crap!

My views are the result of observing reality from a perspective that, again, you are simply not conscious enough to apprehend.

In which case, in conversation with me you’d have to wake-up a tad in order to understand where I'm coming from.

Look, let me make this clear.

Even though we both throw unflattering digs at each other, I nevertheless like you Alexis, and I deeply respect and admire your obvious intelligence, writing skills, and sense of humor.

However, by labeling me as being a "...Progressive/Left..." type, and with your suggestion that I'm being influenced by "...aggressive Americanism and its civil imposition...," you're trying to pull me down into the deeper level of somnambulism from which you view reality,,..

...but it's simply not going to work on me.
_______

[Harbal]

Well, fair enough. I think most of the worries you express are not necessary, though.

When I wrote my last post it was mostly with the Old Testament in mind, and my inability to have any faith in the truth of it brings me much more relief than worry. I say that because I find its representation of God quite sinister. I can well understand how one could fear such a God, and it would be hard not to respect his power, but I most certainly do not find him loveable. The New Testament is probably not as bad.

[Harbal]

I believe there are things in Shakespeare that are subject to dispute over meaning, and that was only written a few hundred years ago.

Shakespeare isn't actually all that under dispute, but okay.

So what I said about Shakespeare has an element of truth to it?

I hoped it would when I made it up.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, fair enough. I think most of the worries you express are not necessary, though.

When I wrote my last post it was mostly with the Old Testament in mind, and my inability to have any faith in the truth of it brings me much more relief than worry. I say that because I find its representation of God quite sinister. I can well understand how one could fear such a God, and it would be hard not to respect his power, but I most certainly do not find him loveable. The New Testament is probably not as bad.

I hear people say that, and I understand what gives that impression. Those who have only the OT can easily get focused on matters of sin, alienation, judgment and so on, because the OT really identifies the problems, but gives the solutions only in a shadowy, anticipatory way. So it can come across as very negative -- especially if one has no part of its fulfillment in the NT in view.

But the longer I study the Bible, the more convinced I am of its wholeness. I don't find two Gods there...just one. But I do find two different periods of history, two different states of human affairs relative to God, a much more explicit revealing of spiritual dynamics, and a lot more of the solutions are worked out in the NT.

However, I think it takes both testaments to get a real sense of that. So what you're saying makes some sense.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe there are things in Shakespeare that are subject to dispute over meaning, and that was only written a few hundred years ago.

Shakespeare isn't actually all that under dispute, but okay.

So what I said about Shakespeare has an element of truth to it?

I hoped it would when I made it up.

Right. Good.

[Lacewing]

That doesn't make much sense. I can't imagine what you "observe"...

You base your beliefs on what you imagine.

Having trouble reading?

You seem to be foolishly suggesting that what a person observes doesn't make sense (for their reasoning), while you think it's sensible to base your beliefs on accounts from a book -- accounts which you have not personally observed -- accounts which you can only imagine.

...such a belief on your part

What belief is that, I.C.? The assumption of the futility of belief in an afterlife?

Is that what you believe? I thought you didn't "believe" anything.

I don't. I was asking you what belief you're imagining and referring to.

Stop trying to twist things -- you're really bad at it, and your dishonest reputation has nowhere left to go.

[iambiguous]

He has said several times that he does not want to be attacked.

But you are going to attack him if he says anything remotely 'incorrect'.

I'm a stooge for pointing this out??

I don't think so.

You're an idiot because you can't recognize and admit to what you are doing.

Right. And in no way has he ever attempted to attack me in turn?

What happens is ‘you-plural’ get overwhelmed by hysteria. Personally, I think you’ve been trained (brainwashed) so that certain topics push you over an internal edge. It is really amazing to me. And I have nothing more to say on the topic at this time.

Why don’t you pass the time playing a little solitaire?

I'm said to be hysterical here. Also straight out of the Manchurian Candidate: dangerously brainwashed?

And, what, in no way should black, brown and red folks feel attacked by him when he argues that the Northern European white stock is scientifically superior to them in intelligence? Because it's all just "theoretical"? What I am curious about is whether he avoids bringing his intellectual contraptions down to Earth because he has never given that part much thought, or if he does, we'll find out that he is a lot closer to the Nazi narrative than some here figured.

I'm not arguing that he is only that he won't clear up just what he does think ought to be done politically and legislatively to stem the "demographic crisis" in America

Now, let's get back to you responding substantively to the points I raised above...instead of popping up from time to time [as you did at ILP] in order to make me the issue. That is where the Stooge part comes in.

When you get it all worked out be sure to let me know.

I’ll be here waiting patiently.

If you can calm down it will make communication possible.

This is what he is reduced down to. Instead of bringing his "theoretical racism" down out of the scholastic clouds and noting what is to be done to stem the "demographic crisis" in America, he makes it all about me instead.

I need to "calm down", go up into the intellectual contraption stratosphere with him and exchange definitions and deductions...to communicate in a proper display of pedantry.

Thanks, but no thanks. Let's just move on to others.

[iambiguous]

iambiguous and I have had our fair share of disagreements and do not see eye-to-eye on certain metaphysical issues.

And even though I strongly disapprove of him (or anyone) casually using denigrating and hateful words such as "C_nks" in this conversation,...

Simply unbelievable. As I noted to phyllo above, I wasn't calling anyone a "slant eyed Chink", I was noting that "As some prefer" was my point! In other words, making a distinction between those who broach race up in the theoretical clouds like AJ and those who are more, shall we say, colorful...or "down to earth"?

Sometimes white folks will use the N word to make a point that is an actual attack on prejudice and stereotypes and discrimination: https://youtu.be/j5RuCEhHcG4

Good grief, I might have known that in my effort to come to your defense against phyllo's misinterpretation of your stance on racism, you would somehow manage to find the one thing in my post to use in order to find fault with me.

As you said - "simply unbelievable".

And no, out of simple respect and decency, white folks should never use the "n" word or "Ch_nk" (in their fully written or spoken form) under any circumstances (unless perhaps it's for some sort of historical or academic journal reporting on the use of hate speech).

And your John Lennon song example is ridiculous and shameful.
_______

Well, that settles that, right? No one can ever disagree with this and expect to be taken seriously.

Or, perhaps, these arrogant, self-righteous sorts ought to pull back and really think through their own bombastic posturing.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

[Lacewing]

Now all you need to do with your atheist mindset is switch the concept of 'the bully' to the Operating System that governs ALL REAL_IT_Y ...(GOD) ...and real eyes when this KUNT is bullying you, you can't point the finger at anyone and ALL this KUNT does, is render you a DELUSIONAL FOOL to anyone you attempt to talk to.

It's unfortunate that this is the reality you seem to be experiencing.

It is not the reality that other people are experiencing.

So, your conclusion about what God is and how that applies to everyone else is false.

If you are sensitive to being called a delusional fool, why are you posting to a forum where people continually don't believe you?

Why should people believe anything that is not their experience?

And you get mad at them for this. Then you post some more.

You are clearly perpetuating a great deal of your experience.

Are you able to move on to a less tortured version of yourself?

Why stir up the responses you don't like and then blame other people for their honest reactions?

[attofishpi]

Now all you need to do with your atheist mindset is switch the concept of 'the bully' to the Operating System that governs ALL REAL_IT_Y ...(GOD) ...and real eyes when this KUNT is bullying you, you can't point the finger at anyone and ALL this KUNT does, is render you a DELUSIONAL FOOL to anyone you attempt to talk to.

It's unfortunate that this is the reality you seem to be experiencing.

WAS, experiencing - past tense.

It is not the reality that other people are experiencing.

So, your conclusion about what God is and how that applies to everyone else is false.

You are the one making that absurd conclusion - I never stated that what God has done to me applies to everyone else!! This is half the reason I don't talk to you, because you draw absurd conclusions continously that I simply don't have the patience to correct.

BTW: This was a conversation between me and Promo - who WAS INTERESTED so stop telling me to STFU about my experiences - you keep your sticky beak out of my stuff, and I will do the same courtesy to you.