Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

What am I, the clod on the bus, missing?

Why have you come to this site PN and why this particular thread?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

And sin is a metaphor, an obsolete poetic place holder, for abuse of power. Which is all around us. You can see it and smell it and hear it and touch it and taste it. It's not metaphoric.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What am I, the clod on the bus, missing?

Why have you come to this site PN and why this particular thread?

Because I was a Christian for 50 years.

And I have a unique, please prove me wrong, happy to be, valid critique of it as being demonstrably purely natural due to its fundamental moral inadequacies.

And why are you here?

[Will Bouwman]

Has metaphysics gained any more knowledge than religion, outside sensory experience?

(A good thread title in itself methinks.)

Metaphysics isn't about knowledge; it's about interpreting knowledge. Religion is what you do when you have fuck all knowledge.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Has metaphysics gained any more knowledge than religion, outside sensory experience?

(A good thread title in itself methinks.)

Metaphysics isn't about knowledge; it's about interpreting knowledge. Religion is what you do when you have fuck all knowledge.

And the interpretation of knowledge, like Goedel's, can't produce knowledge? Open question. Religion is what you do to knowledge, with knowledge, after unwarranted, unjustified, untrue belief.

I feel Alexis is trying to do that with metaphysics.

Time for a smoke.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Red, formerly Sweet, Orient.

If you, Alexis, are defending Christian thought as part of the development of, even the barely, glacially slow, net progressive history of ideas, I agree. We couldn't have done any better. Obviously. Because we are so naturally constrained in morality. Giving all possible good will to Jesus of Nazareth and his remarkable mother and culture, he probably would be, objectively, the greatest person in history. His God was a monster.

Tea, Tamnavulin, dark grapes and chocolate now.

[Will Bouwman]

...the interpretation of knowledge, like Goedel's, can't produce knowledge? Open question. Religion is what you do to knowledge, with knowledge, after unwarranted, unjustified, untrue belief.

I feel Alexis is trying to do that with metaphysics.

Time for a smoke.

I have the impression this isn't your first this evening. Why Goedel in particular? Alexis, among the odious halfwits who pollute this site, at least has the presence of mind to admit some humility and can, on occasion, be funny (well done, Gus).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Metaphysics isn't about knowledge; it's about interpreting knowledge. Religion is what you do when you have fuck all knowledge.

That is simply false. I mean you are making a statement that is do highly prejudiced — and you are fully entitled to your view, naturally — but religion cannot be dismissed as an option for those with “fuck all” knowledge.

Your critique seems specific to specific religionists.

You are certainly right though about metaphysics as interpretation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis, among the odious halfwits who pollute this site

See that is actually one of the cores that undergirds all sorts of discord, in many areas, on many levels: hyper-arrogance.

Though I could interpret it favorably:

There is Alexis, the Hyperborean Apollo, down among the half-wits, shining a Golden Light …

Yes! I like that better. Thanks, Wilbur!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Alexis, among the odious halfwits who pollute this site

See that is actually one of the cores that undergirds all sorts of discord, in many areas, on many levels: hyper-arrogance.

Though I could interpret it favorably:

There is Alexis, the Hyperborean Apollo, down among the half-wits, shining a Golden Light …

Yes! I like that better. Thanks, Wilbur!

: ) Alexis, you might annoy the hell out of me, but abuse like yours Will, is just not acceptable. And worse, it always redounds negatively to the abuser. You lose credibility.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

...the interpretation of knowledge, like Goedel's, can't produce knowledge? Open question. Religion is what you do to knowledge, with knowledge, after unwarranted, unjustified, untrue belief.

I feel Alexis is trying to do that with metaphysics.

Time for a smoke.

I have the impression this isn't your first this evening. Why Goedel in particular? Alexis, among the odious halfwits who pollute this site, at least has the presence of mind to admit some humility and can, on occasion, be funny (well done, Gus).

It was my first, and, alas, not weed. Can't find my Pax Mini. Goedel as an analogy with his 2bd theory of incompleteness. I have nothing to [be] humble about.

PS So, what ought I to be be humble about?

[Alexis Jacobi]

: ) Alexis, you might annoy the hell out of me, but abuse like yours [of?] Will, is just not acceptable. And worse, it always redounds negatively to the abuser. You lose credibility.

Think it through: How much credibility did I start with? What have I actually lost? Eh?

I think Will is just wonderful. I say that sincerely.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And why are you here?

I make it clear all the time, and I did again just recently. I am very interested in the cultural-political shift that is on-going. I am interested in, I became interested in, ultra-conservatism: the absolute metaphysical version of ur-conservatism. That led me to a consideration of “essences” (like quintessences). Nietzsche (principally Genealogy of Morals) had a large effect on me, as did Richard Weaver. Richard Weaver deals on moments in the ideational realm where missteps are taken. I am therefore, really interested in missteps and, naturally, the corrective movement — which certainly involves metaphysics.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

: ) Alexis, you might annoy the hell out of me, but abuse like yours [of?] Will, is just not acceptable. And worse, it always redounds negatively to the abuser. You lose credibility.

Think it through: How much credibility did I start with? What have I actually lost? Eh?

I think Will is just wonderful. I say that sincerely.

No 'of'. Will is the abuser.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

And why are you here?

I make it clear all the time, and I did again just recently. I am very interested in the cultural-political shift that is on-going. I am interested in, I became interested in, ultra-conservatism: the absolute metaphysical version of ur-conservatism. That led me to a consideration of “essences” (like quintessences). Nietzsche (principally Genealogy of Morals) had a large effect on me, as did Richard Weaver. Richard Weaver deals on moments in the ideational realm where missteps are taken. I am therefore, really interested in missteps and, naturally, the corrective movement — which certainly involves metaphysics.

Good luck. I see no missteps, no corrective movement. Just bio-psycho-sociological determinism. Including in Christianity. Metaphysics just reinforces that.