Christianity

[Age]

This will not surprise me about AI.

That it will crunch all the maths based upon REAL_IT_Y *physics* and the answer that pops out won't be 42, it will be---> WE R IN A SHELL.

A SHELL, within a SHELL, within how many iterations?

Who cares, NE 1 with a logical brain will comprehend that the outer SHELL always has the ULTIMATE control over the inner SHELL...there is an intelligent outer system that has us and our reality bound to it.

Once more 'this one' has completely and utterly contradicted "itself".

OWE OUI, back to S_HELL.



...and wot is an 'S' ? ....a SIN wave silly.

[Belinda]

This will not surprise me about AI.

That it will crunch all the maths based upon REAL_IT_Y *physics* and the answer that pops out won't be 42, it will be---> WE R IN A SHELL.

A SHELL, within a SHELL, within how many iterations?

Who cares, NE 1 with a logical brain will comprehend that the outer SHELL always has the ULTIMATE control over the inner SHELL...there is an intelligent outer system that has us and our reality bound to it.

Once more 'this one' has completely and utterly contradicted "itself".

OWE OUI, back to S_HELL.



...and wot is an 'S' ? ....a SIN wave silly.

Age, why do you even bother to discuss Christianity ? Can you not find a better tutor than Attofishpi?

[Age]

This will not surprise me about AI.

That it will crunch all the maths based upon REAL_IT_Y *physics* and the answer that pops out won't be 42, it will be---> WE R IN A SHELL.

A SHELL, within a SHELL, within how many iterations?

Who cares, NE 1 with a logical brain will comprehend that the outer SHELL always has the ULTIMATE control over the inner SHELL...there is an intelligent outer system that has us and our reality bound to it.

Once more 'this one' has completely and utterly contradicted "itself".

OWE OUI, back to S_HELL.



...and wot is an 'S' ? ....a SIN wave silly.

Age, why do you even bother to discuss Christianity ?

Am I discussing "christianity", or, did I just post in thread called "christianity", here?

Can you not find a better tutor than Attofishpi?

I am not sure what your question, here, is in relation to, exactly?

For your information 'the one' known, here, as "attofishpi" has just, once more, contradicted "itself" completely. I just made note of 'this'.

I did so to see if any one would show any interest at all in how "attofishpi" contradicted "itself" once more.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

“A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient; nor does he take it ill to be railed at by a man in a fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind, as a physician does his patient; and looking upon them only as sick and extravagant.”
― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

The Scottish Play, Act V. Scene V. - Dunsinane. Within the Castle. Macbeth: "... it is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.".

You cannot help the unhelpable Belinda, even those who ask. It's no ones fault. R D Laing might have been able to. But no mere mortals such as we.

They have to be Foed until they learn to be polite. And they can not. It's terribly sad.

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

Same here.

[Immanuel Can]

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

[Immanuel Can]

In fact, this is a very good subtopic.

Why is “equality of outcome” a desired goal?

Why is “equality of opportunity” not enough?

How can “equality of outcome” be achieved, if we still imagine it’s desirable, without dragging everybody down to the lowest common level?

And below that:

What belief would entitle us to advocate that “equality of outcome” is promised to us, or is even virtuous, given that hierarchy of values is universally evident?

WHO is trying to get us to assume that “equality of outcome” is a virtuous and desirable goal? Whose interests are being served by us believing something that a) manifestly never happens in reality, and b) is not achievable without the complete destruction of all values?

Is our assumption that there is something specifically “Christian” about “equality of outcome”? If so, what would the connection be? What proof could we summon that this is a “Christian” imperative? If it’s secular, what secular source could we cite to justify our claim that secularism requires us to aim at “equality of outcome”?

I’ll bet these are things that most people who suppose “equality of outcome” to be a moral goal have never even entertained as problematic. But if not, what’s sponsoring their confidence in that goal?

[Belinda]

“A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient; nor does he take it ill to be railed at by a man in a fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind, as a physician does his patient; and looking upon them only as sick and extravagant.”
― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

The Scottish Play, Act V. Scene V. - Dunsinane. Within the Castle. Macbeth: "... it is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.".

You cannot help the unhelpable Belinda, even those who ask. It's no ones fault. R D Laing might have been able to. But no mere mortals such as we.

They have to be Foed until they learn to be polite. And they can not. It's terribly sad.

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

Same here.

Yes, sorry about my impatience, you are right. My excuse is that Age did once or twice make sense .

[Martin Peter Clarke]

“A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient; nor does he take it ill to be railed at by a man in a fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind, as a physician does his patient; and looking upon them only as sick and extravagant.”
― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

The Scottish Play, Act V. Scene V. - Dunsinane. Within the Castle. Macbeth: "... it is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.".

You cannot help the unhelpable Belinda, even those who ask. It's no ones fault. R D Laing might have been able to. But no mere mortals such as we.

They have to be Foed until they learn to be polite. And they can not. It's terribly sad.

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

Same here.

Yes, sorry about my impatience, you are right. My excuse is that Age did once or twice make sense .

Don't you dare be sorry to the likes of me Belinda! I got three fingers pointing back at me if I point to a sister's mote I imagine. That's the tragedy, many do, age and godelian for a start, but. Make sense. They are... disarrayed. They need rock star income treatment. I mean I could do with that too, but my thread of rationality has not yet snapped or been overwhelmed. In fact it's new found, only in the last 10% of my life. And I will not ever let go until it all turns to mush. These poor guys get abuse here, and I come close, which broken creatures do not need. They can't walk naked and be OK with us. And it's nobody's fault. They may have been seriously abused from infancy, but probably not. Just faulty wiring and wear and tear. Some are more hopeful. Not as hostile. Not at all in some cases. But not grounded. Not groundable. Where's R D when you need him?

[Belinda]

“A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient; nor does he take it ill to be railed at by a man in a fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind, as a physician does his patient; and looking upon them only as sick and extravagant.”
― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

The Scottish Play, Act V. Scene V. - Dunsinane. Within the Castle. Macbeth: "... it is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.".

You cannot help the unhelpable Belinda, even those who ask. It's no ones fault. R D Laing might have been able to. But no mere mortals such as we.

They have to be Foed until they learn to be polite. And they can not. It's terribly sad.

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

Same here.

Yes, sorry about my impatience, you are right. My excuse is that Age did once or twice make sense .

Don't you dare be sorry to the likes of me Belinda! I got three fingers pointing back at me if I point to a sister's mote I imagine. That's the tragedy, many do, age and godelian for a start, but. Make sense. They are... disarrayed. They need rock star income treatment. I mean I could do with that too, but my thread of rationality has not yet snapped or been overwhelmed. In fact it's new found, only in the last 10% of my life. And I will not ever let go until it all turns to mush. These poor guys get abuse here, and I come close, which broken creatures do not need. They can't walk naked and be OK with us. And it's nobody's fault. They may have been seriously abused from infancy, but probably not. Just faulty wiring and wear and tear. Some are more hopeful. Not as hostile. Not at all in some cases. But not grounded. Not groundable. Where's R D when you need him?

Do you not think it would help them to have the courage to know that they don't know?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Yes, sorry about my impatience, you are right. My excuse is that Age did once or twice make sense .

Don't you dare be sorry to the likes of me Belinda! I got three fingers pointing back at me if I point to a sister's mote I imagine. That's the tragedy, many do, age and godelian for a start, but. Make sense. They are... disarrayed. They need rock star income treatment. I mean I could do with that too, but my thread of rationality has not yet snapped or been overwhelmed. In fact it's new found, only in the last 10% of my life. And I will not ever let go until it all turns to mush. These poor guys get abuse here, and I come close, which broken creatures do not need. They can't walk naked and be OK with us. And it's nobody's fault. They may have been seriously abused from infancy, but probably not. Just faulty wiring and wear and tear. Some are more hopeful. Not as hostile. Not at all in some cases. But not grounded. Not groundable. Where's R D when you need him?

Do you not think it would help them to have the courage to know that they don't know?

Yeah I do, but I don't think it's a matter of courage. It's more poignant than that. They are so fucked up there's no way they can know it. I should feel too bad to say that. But I don't. Because there's nothing to lose. Nothing can hurt them more. I've worked with street people. I passed one this evening on the river bank. I walked on, he didn't know. And I've been the only person to encourage him before now, because I wasn't afraid of him. He was scary. But he'd aged and was looking at the sky. Reduced. And I didn't have the... energy to stop and engage.

They 'just' need a vast amount of money spent on their treatment. So they can be... disarrayed in comfort. Looked after.

[Belinda]

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

I saw you before I logged in and you were filtered out. So I've brought you back in from outer darkness, for now.

'They' don't exist in equality of outcome. 'They' are the most reduced, to private sufficiency. When all land and treasure is freed from ownership. To be used for public luxury. I have no slack. I'm 71 and can't afford to stop working. Lucky me to have a job. When the point of private sufficiency of the formerly wealthy is reached, it must not be forced lower, by the masses rising up to that level. And there will be those who cannot ever be lifted up to private sufficiency. But the luxury public services should make a difference. In health, education. welfare.

Re your next post, later.

[Immanuel Can]

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

That is true, when equality of outcome is believed to be possible. Equality of opportunity is possible for welfare socialists. I hope, Immanuel, that you don't agree with the political stance described in the unexpurgated verse "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them, high and lowly, And ordered their estate."

Actually, B., I would suppose you’re maybe misreading the import of that particular song…I think it’s aiming at asserting that all people are of equal value in God’s eyes, and He equally made all. But as for the “ordered their estate” part, that’s more Hindu than Christian, for sure; so I’d take exception to that line. However, high church hymns are actually not always the source of the most accurate theology, as you probably know.

The problem is this, though: what does one do about “inequalities” of all kinds? People differ in income, it’s true; but they also differ in things like athleticism, aesthetic sensitivity, musicianship, culture, background, age, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, location of birth, genetics, sex, susceptibility to things like addiction, moral values, intellect, education, family, bone density, sensory sharpness…and so on, and so on. What, then, is “equality of outcome”? And just what measures, by whom, are required to make it happen? Who’s the judge of when we arrive at the condition of “equal outcomes”? Just how are we supposed to take seriously an objective that not only has been realized never and nowhere, but also cannot even conceivably be obtained?

For that matter, while there is some warrant for an exalted status for the poor in Christianity, (as there, we are at least enjoined to show charity and mercy to the poor, and promised God’s pleasure and reward for so doing) what’s the basis for exalting the poor from a a purely secular, unreligious perspective?

[Immanuel Can]

I encountered a guy yesterday outside Morrisons, he wanted cash not provisions. I've encountered him before raving for help. R D Laing wasn't on hand. It would take a hundred thousand pounds a year to help him, in a mental hospital.

In the absence of equality of outcome, that is never going to happen.

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

I saw you before I logged in and you were filtered out. So I've brought you back in from outer darkness, for now.

Am I to be grateful, then? Okay, Martin…I thank you for readmitting me to the land of the living.

It’s up to you, Martin. I’ll be here, doing my thing.

'They' don't exist in equality of outcome. 'They' are the most reduced, to private sufficiency. When all land and treasure is freed from ownership. To be used for public luxury. I have no slack. I'm 71 and can't afford to stop working. Lucky me to have a job.

That’s a miserable situation, Martin, I admit. But we must consider ourselves lucky indeed; the truth is that the entire Western world is in the upper 10% of humanity, even at their lowest. And if “equal outcomes” are to be achieved, the level at which we’ll all live is closer to 3rd world poverty than anything you or I have now.

This raises a further question: if “equality of outcome” is the goal, where is the border? What’s the rationale for Western nations having more than penurious nations elsewhere? Mercifully for the proponents of “equality of outcome,” this question is usually not asked.

When the point of private sufficiency of the formerly wealthy is reached, it must not be forced lower, by the masses rising up to that level.

What is “that level”? Is it the level of a Chinese peasant on a Communist farm? A middle-class Westerner? For it takes a lot less to live in the Developing World than in our Western ethos…and different amounts in every country in the West, as well.

And there will be those cannot ever be lifted up to private sufficiency.

Like the fellow at Morrison’s, presumably. You said a hundred years of therapy would not suffice to produce “equality of outcomes” for him. But then the goal is impossible, isn’t it? What then is the utility of training people to aspire to an “equality of outcome” that cannot be attained? What do we do with the drug addicts, the criminals, the indolent, the mendacious, the foolish, the incompetent, the unintelligent…

It seems to me that a spirit of charity, not of “equality” is what suits their situation. But charity implies inequality, and that would seem to be banished by the aspiration to “equality of outcome.” We might, as you suggest, improve their lot — that’s a perpetual given, from a Christian perspective anyway — but I still haven’t seen what secular warrant there would be for caring about inequality.

[Gary Childress]

How is that going to work? How are you going to achieve “equality of outcome” between yourself and a mentally-ill grifter you met outside Morrison’s? Since they can’t bring him up to your level, as you say, for a hundred years, even if they had the therapy to do it, they’ll have to drag you down to his level, so your “outcome” is “equal” to his.

That’s the problem with “equality of outcome”: in reality, it means “a race to the bottom” or “everybody to the lowest common denominator.”

I saw you before I logged in and you were filtered out. So I've brought you back in from outer darkness, for now.

Am I to be grateful, then? Okay, Martin…I thank you for readmitting me to the land of the living.

It’s up to you, Martin. I’ll be here, doing my thing.

'They' don't exist in equality of outcome. 'They' are the most reduced, to private sufficiency. When all land and treasure is freed from ownership. To be used for public luxury. I have no slack. I'm 71 and can't afford to stop working. Lucky me to have a job.

That’s a miserable situation, Martin, I admit. But we must consider ourselves lucky indeed; the truth is that the entire Western world is in the upper 10% of humanity, even at their lowest. And if “equal outcomes” are to be achieved, the level at which we’ll all live is closer to 3rd world poverty than anything you or I have now.

This raises a further question: if “equality of outcome” is the goal, where is the border? What’s the rationale for Western nations having more than penurious nations elsewhere? Mercifully for the proponents of “equality of outcome,” this question is usually not asked.

When the point of private sufficiency of the formerly wealthy is reached, it must not be forced lower, by the masses rising up to that level.

What is “that level”? Is it the level of a Chinese peasant on a Communist farm? A middle-class Westerner? For it takes a lot less to live in the Developing World than in our Western ethos…and different amounts in every country in the West, as well.

And there will be those cannot ever be lifted up to private sufficiency.

Like the fellow at Morrison’s, presumably. You said a hundred years of therapy would not suffice to produce “equality of outcomes” for him. But then the goal is impossible, isn’t it? What then is the utility of training people to aspire to an “equality of outcome” that cannot be attained? What do we do with the drug addicts, the criminals, the indolent, the mendacious, the foolish, the incompetent, the unintelligent…

It seems to me that a spirit of charity, not of “equality” is what suits their situation. But charity implies inequality, and that would seem to be banished by the aspiration to “equality of outcome.” We might, as you suggest, improve their lot — that’s a perpetual given, from a Christian perspective anyway — but I still haven’t seen what secular warrant there would be for caring about inequality.

Welfare programs in the US aren't really aiming at equality of outcome. It's understood that a person on welfare is not going to fare as well as someone working under gainful employment. And they generally don't, albeit with some exceptions (such as the working poor who don't qualify for welfare). Welfare programs in the US have never been about equality of outcome. They've always been about preventing hunger and destitution. Not sure what "equality of outcome" has to do with anything in reality. Our programs are mostly trying to keep people from dying homeless on the street.

The liberal mantra in the US for the past 50 years and more has been equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. However, dishonest critics constantly put up the straw man of "equality of outcome" as the "real" motive.