God and morality

[Gary Childress]

MAN with his burning soul
Has but an hour of breath
To build a ship of truth
In which his soul may sail—
Sail on the sea of death,
For death takes a toll
Of Beauty, courage, youth,
Of all but truth . . .

Can you describe a little better what this "ship" of truth looks like to you? And what exactly do you mean by "burning soul"? Does consciousness catch fire? Can you give an evidence-based account of what the poem (from books usually found in the "fiction" aisle of the library) is referring to? j

Seriously, though. I wish you'd stop polluting the world with folklore and fairy tales. They're not science, AJ. You and others like you are, in actuality, poisoning a whole generation into superstitious insanity. But I don't think you really care about that. Otherwise, you'd grow a conscience and stop or pause a moment and take in what so many sane people are trying to tell you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is of a chestnut color and slightly weathered by the salt waves. It has gloriously billowing sails on which the red cross is blazoned. Beautiful maids all in white stand at the rails and intone a beautiful, celestial song. Porpoises accompany it, surfacing and diving in slippery arcs.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can you describe a little better what this "ship" of truth looks like to you? And what exactly do you mean by "burning soul"?

Hold on a cotton pickin’ second! A soul burns in metaphorical similarity to one who speaks as an ever-full bag of hot air! So there!

[Gary Childress]

Ask God for gladness. Be glad like children, like the birds of heaven. And let not the sin of men dismay you in your doings: Fear not lest it choke your work and hinder its accomplishment. Say not, Sin is powerful, Ungodliness is powerful, bad Conventionalism is powerful; while we are solitary and powerless: the world will choke us and will frustrate the good work. Away with such despondency, my children. . . If a man cast the blame of his sloth and inefficiency upon others, he will end by sharing the pride of Satan and murmuring against God. Now, about the pride of Satan, I think thus: it is difficult for us on earth to understand it, and therefore it is easy to be ensnared in it, and to share it, and even to imagine all the while that we are doing something great and wonderful. And in the profoundest sensations and impulses of our nature also there is much that we cannot now understand... On this earth we truly wander, and are as it were lost; so that were it not for the glorious figure of Christ before us, we should perish utterly. . .Much on earth is hidden from us, but there is given us in recompense the secret conviction of our living bond with another world, a celestial and loftier world: and the very roots of our thoughts and sensations are not here but there, in other worlds. And that is why the philosophers say that on earth it is impossible to knowthe essence of things.

I couldn't conscience being an unrepentant fraud like you. Christ was probably a human being. He's probably not coming back from death. He's probably not going to "resurrect" anyone. And the rest is probably a lot like the embellishment that Daniel Boone received. Nice try to spook me though. It works a lot of the time once you know how the human psyche works. It's easy for people like you to manipulate it.

[Gary Childress]

Can you describe a little better what this "ship" of truth looks like to you? And what exactly do you mean by "burning soul"?

Hold on a cotton pickin’ second! A soul burns in metaphorical similarity to one who speaks as an ever-full bag of hot air! So there!

What is a "cotton pickin" second and how does it differ from a normal second?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Seriously, though. I wish you'd stop polluting the world with folklore and fairy tales. They're not science, AJ. You and others like you are, in actuality, poisoning a whole generation into superstitious insanity. But I don't think you really care about that. Otherwise, you'd grow a conscience and stop or pause a moment and take in what so many sane people are trying to tell you.

That is, in a way characteristic of your personality and predilections, a fine statement of where, in the Carlyle sense, you stand.

But I cannot take you seriously.

And I am very uncertain what “poisons” people or any generations of men. But I am very interested in your descriptions of what you do think. Which is (my) purpose of involvement in conversation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is a "cotton pickin" second and how does it differ from a normal second?

There are no ‘normal seconds’, Gary. They are all anormal. Have you not figured that out yet?!

Consider a mere minute!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Otherwise, you'd grow a conscience and stop or pause a moment and take in what so many sane people are trying to tell you.

And what exactly is that? What are ‘they’ trying to tell me.

Also, how can you (as you said on the insane couch) recognize the sane? If you are insane, how can you advise that I accept your doctrines, such as they are?

[Gary Childress]

Seriously, though. I wish you'd stop polluting the world with folklore and fairy tales. They're not science, AJ. You and others like you are, in actuality, poisoning a whole generation into superstitious insanity. But I don't think you really care about that. Otherwise, you'd grow a conscience and stop or pause a moment and take in what so many sane people are trying to tell you.

That is, in a way characteristic of your personality and predilections, a fine statement of where, in the Carlyle sense, you stand.

But I cannot take you seriously.

And I am very uncertain what “poisons” people or any generations of men. But I am very interested in your descriptions of what you do think. Which is (my) purpose of involvement in conversation.

What poisons people is xenophobia and being asked to trust religion (old science) over the latest science. The MAGA movement is not legitimate. It is a fraud and a scandal. Trump was the worst possible scenario, and people like you have filled yourselves with so much banter from the "alt right" that you actively feed their lunacy making them believe they're onto some great "metaphysical" "truth" or that theirs is an "alternative" truth.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wait, you are changing the subject pretty substantially. Is this really what has you in distress right now? Trump, MAGA, etc?

What poisons people is xenophobia and being asked to trust religion (old science) over the latest science.

What can science teach, or what does it teach man now? Can you describe it?

[Gary Childress]

Wait, you are changing the subject pretty substantially. Is this really what has you in distress right now? Trump, MAGA, etc?

They wouldn't be in power if it weren't for corrupt intellectuals like you feeding off their banter, legitimizing it.

[phyllo]

Well, my view is that Man and Argument are better seen as a whole and inseparable. It is the real view that we hold (of what is and the way things are) that really determines what a man does.

It may be what a man does but it's not necessarily what a man argues.

I think your view is weak because it takes away from the points being made and places an emphasis on the beliefs of the man. Beliefs which you may well be imagining.

You are, I think, avoiding presenting a position. In the sense that Carlyle means. Are you hesitant to reveal it cleanly? Why?

In you Man and Argument come together as one.

So, you could answer, but simultaneously you could not. But it would not change: you have (as we all have) a core paradigm that we live through.

If I write "I believe this ...", then you will immediately create a stereotype of what you believe that involves.

You will not respond to the points I raise. You will respond to what you think I believe.

You already do this when you write about "modern man". It's your stereotype instead of the individual poster who is talking to you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If I write "I believe this ...", then you will immediately create a stereotype of what you believe that involves.

If you talk about what you actually believe, you will only be doing the reading commentariat a favor. It is my view that one should say what one actually thinks and avoid caring what others think about it. Formerly you have expressed reserve in going out on a limb however. And that is your choice.

It is far more interesting though (this is my view) to take the risk.

You are a “modern man” as is everyone writing on this forum. You definitely are not an ancient man nor one of the time before “the death of God”. You surely must realize this?

You will not respond to the points I raise.

Make your points with greater strength and independent conviction. I have been working in areas relevant to my own considerations.

The topic being, ultimately, morality. I have certainly worked to flesh out my own stances there.

[phyllo]

"Modern man" is the dumbing down of richness and complexity of individuals.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, it is a specific term with specific relevancy to ‘men’ (ie people in our society) and how they have been influenced and trained to understand our reality: this world.

You are skirting the issue of clarifying where you actually stand, Phyllo.

But maybe you mean that modern man has been dumbed down?