Here is your problem - the way you think of the question.does truth or goodness reside in the sayer or in the word?
Thanks for this timely reply, though I accept that all the people arent Christian, therefore if only I would see such an ocasion (crusifix in the coffee cup) privately, it would mean nothing. But if you would do that demonstratively public (lets say in a local pub in a Catholic area) I would have to disavow youchaz wyman wrote:Here is your problem - the way you think of the question.does truth or goodness reside in the sayer or in the word?
Truth and goodness reside in neither of the above. They have to reside is a conception of the relationship between the object of the truth or goodness and that person who employs the sign to attribute truth and goodness to that object.
It is in the relationship; it does not exist in either of the above exclusively.
The confusion in the poem speaks to this fundamental error. It plays with the fallacy that resides in the common perception of most people who, like you confuse the sign with the reality that it points to.
If this is puzzling, then ask what is a crucifix. What would be wrong with me using one to stir my coffee? Why would Christians revere such a thing? The answer is that there is a human tendency to forget what is important. The crucifix is a lump of metal hanging from a neck or a lump of wood that might be used to fuel my fire.
The reverence becomes located in the object. This is the other side of the coin to your problem. You think you can see truth in a person AND/OR the object of the Crucifix.
Now consider the meaning of a cross made 5,000 years ago. The importance is not in the object, nor in the perceiver, but in their relationship.
So glad that I may change thought with somebody worth my time... 
What do we see here, that we may count as good and evil amongst men and objects?The anointing of Jesus at Bethany marks the beginning of the passion narrative in the Synoptic Gospels... Jerusalem was crowded with Jewish visitors from all over the Roman world. It is estimated that the population of Jerusalem quadrupled at this time of the year, around the end of March... As the storm clouds gathered around our Lord's head, he visited his friends in Bethany. It must have warmed his heart to be invited for dinner by people who held him in deep respect and esteem... (v3). "While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the the jar and poured the ointment on his head." ... We are told that important people were sometimes honored by breaking the cup from whitch they had drunk, so that no one else would ever drink from it... It was not unusual for guests at a festival occaision to have theyr heads anointed by the host... Given the cotliness of the unguent whitch she poured out on Jesus, she must have saved and acrounged for a long time., watining for a moment to honor the Master before he died... Her act was so artless and unsophisticated. Without calculating the cost she demonstrated her love for the Savior.
And again, if Paul Keres would say, that Fisher isnt a great chess-player, it would have more weight than if I would do the same. What is allowed to God, isn't allowed to a bull. (greek proverb) So you can say that truth and goodness or evil resides in words and men. 
Bob, you're realy trying my nerve here.bobevenson wrote:There is nothing beyond good and evil. As it says in "The Ouzo Prophecy" (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf), "The evil that lurks in the minds of men is manifested in the collective evil of the beast. Understand the man and you cannot be deceived by his institutions." The Ouzo Cross, described in the same paper, is a symbolic representation of the struggle between good and evil, the Christ line versus the beast line. And in Revelation 17:17 (a description of the beast in chapter and verse), it says, "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."
I've been patient and silent about you, but you still keep boging me and the others with your Ouzo prophesy. 
Walgekaaren wrote:Thanks for this timely reply, though I accept that all the people arent Christian, therefore if only I would see such an ocasion (crusifix in the coffee cup) privately, it would mean nothing. But if you would do that demonstratively public (lets say in a local pub in a Catholic area) I would have to disavow youchaz wyman wrote:Here is your problem - the way you think of the question.does truth or goodness reside in the sayer or in the word?
Truth and goodness reside in neither of the above. They have to reside is a conception of the relationship between the object of the truth or goodness and that person who employs the sign to attribute truth and goodness to that object.
It is in the relationship; it does not exist in either of the above exclusively.
The confusion in the poem speaks to this fundamental error. It plays with the fallacy that resides in the common perception of most people who, like you confuse the sign with the reality that it points to.
If this is puzzling, then ask what is a crucifix. What would be wrong with me using one to stir my coffee? Why would Christians revere such a thing? The answer is that there is a human tendency to forget what is important. The crucifix is a lump of metal hanging from a neck or a lump of wood that might be used to fuel my fire.
The reverence becomes located in the object. This is the other side of the coin to your problem. You think you can see truth in a person AND/OR the object of the Crucifix.
Now consider the meaning of a cross made 5,000 years ago. The importance is not in the object, nor in the perceiver, but in their relationship.
This is a philosophy Forum, not a pub full of Guinness swilling Teagues. Here we do not accept the ideology of our betters' we think about things. I do not therefore accept your disavowal.
I normally hate relics for they remind me of Nehustan (the name of the Brass-snake what was given to Israel, in order to salvage them form snakebites. Became an idol later, and was destroyed by a man of God.) Though I also wear a cross, as a slavemark. It reminds me of how costly my life is...
How wonderfully parochial of you
Besides, the above was a retorical question, what was ment to be the first move in a philosophical play of chess.
To make my point, let us view the anointing of Jesus at Bethany (Mk 14:1.9 NRSV) I will quote "Marks Passion Narrative" by David Ewert all rights reserved:What do we see here, that we may count as good and evil amongst men and objects?The anointing of Jesus at Bethany marks the beginning of the passion narrative in the Synoptic Gospels... Jerusalem was crowded with Jewish visitors from all over the Roman world. It is estimated that the population of Jerusalem quadrupled at this time of the year, around the end of March... As the storm clouds gathered around our Lord's head, he visited his friends in Bethany. It must have warmed his heart to be invited for dinner by people who held him in deep respect and esteem... (v3). "While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the the jar and poured the ointment on his head." ... We are told that important people were sometimes honored by breaking the cup from whitch they had drunk, so that no one else would ever drink from it... It was not unusual for guests at a festival occaision to have theyr heads anointed by the host... Given the cotliness of the unguent whitch she poured out on Jesus, she must have saved and acrounged for a long time., watining for a moment to honor the Master before he died... Her act was so artless and unsophisticated. Without calculating the cost she demonstrated her love for the Savior.
What we see is another example of a basic misconception of reality, naive of basic epistemological considerations, and of little relevance to philosophy.
Have you considered a religion forum?
The anointing of Jesus head is for one side a good deed, but its cost makes it an evil deed in the eyes of the viewers, from whitch one was Judas Iskariot, who misused the Lord's funds, therefore got disgruntled for not getting his share from that ointments cost.
The fact that the male participants of that feast didnt come to think of anointing Jesus's head is a evil deed of disrespect out of negligance (they just forgot for all the joy of such an honorable guest) and that makes that womans reverance even more pious and honorable, thus dishonoring all the men in that room.
Simply put, that ointment of nard, became like dynamite, for a mere woman was the better man.
Words may bring a big difference if they'r uttered by the right men in the right occasion. For instance, if that woman were praised and not despised by viewers, before Jesus stepped in for the rescue, it would have sayd much of the heart's conditions of that feast's attendants. But, alas, no such hope.
You may call it spell-binding but still... words got stuff, that emanates people and people got stuff, that illuminates words. It is a huge difference if Bill Gates or Bill Snail says "I like the way you designed your laptop." One has founded Microsoft and his words count, the other is just a made-up name, a nobody.
So you're saying that this conversation isnt philosophy - a love for the truth?This is a philosophy Forum, not a pub full of Guinness swilling Teagues. Here we do not accept the ideology of our betters' we think about things. I do not therefore accept your disavowal.
And why do you even have to consider accepting me It wasnt ment to be read like that. 
If you want to prove that I'm thinking of myself as better than you, than why arent you using the Socrates aproach? How can you say what I am able to consieve or not?What we see is another example of a basic misconception of reality, naive of basic epistemological considerations, and of little relevance to philosophy.
Have you considered a religion forum?
Are you Walgekaaren? This is my reality you are talking of... You seem to think that the only relevant philosophy is non-religious; dry; metaphysical walking around the bowl of hot porridge. How wonderful 
Walgekaaren wrote:And why is your P.O box including the mark of the beast? For it is 46666!bobevenson wrote:There is nothing beyond good and evil. As it says in "The Ouzo Prophecy" (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf), "The evil that lurks in the minds of men is manifested in the collective evil of the beast. Understand the man and you cannot be deceived by his institutions." The Ouzo Cross, described in the same paper, is a symbolic representation of the struggle between good and evil, the Christ line versus the beast line. And in Revelation 17:17 (a description of the beast in chapter and verse), it says, "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."
That is an interesting question, and one I have wondered about myself. In the beginning, I had an idea for a game called Ouzo that I wanted to promote. Every so often, I would hear somebody mention the Biblical 666 in some context. It always reminded me of an Ouzo bid, like 3-6's. I finally asked somebody, where in the Bible is 666, and he said the book of Revelation. Although I was familiar with the name of the book, I didn't know if it was in the Old Testament or the New Testament. I checked it out, and found Rev.13:18, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man, and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." A few days later, I happened to write our number system from 0 to 9 across a sheet of paper. I then absent-mindedly bracketed the 6, and noticed that the group of numbers leading up to and away from 6 also reduced to 6. I subsequently realized that Rev.13:18 seemed to describe the game, and I got the promotional idea of writing a short paper called "The Ouzo Prophecy" to show that the game was predicted in the Bible. At about this time, I needed a P.O. Box for correspondence related to the production and marketing of the game. When I went to the post office, the clerk filled out all the required forms, and when I signed them, he took me over to my P.O. Box. When he put the key in, it froze, and would not turn. He disgustedly said, "It was working fine this morning!" Now, he had to fill out a completely new set of forms, and when I signed them this time, I noticed it was P.O. Box 46666, the 666th box in Cincinnati Zip Code 46.
Walgekaaren wrote:So you're saying that this conversation isnt philosophy - a love for the truth?This is a philosophy Forum, not a pub full of Guinness swilling Teagues. Here we do not accept the ideology of our betters' we think about things. I do not therefore accept your disavowal.
Yes, I'm, saying that this is not philosophy for two reasons. 1) this has nothing to do with TRUTH, 2) that the meaning of philosophy is the love of Wisdom - which best translates Sophos. A great part of philsophy is the ability to unpack presumptions of truth.
How can you say what I am able to consieve or not?What we see is another example of a basic misconception of reality, naive of basic epistemological considerations, and of little relevance to philosophy.
Have you considered a religion forum?
See above
Because you're answering in this kind of manner - well thats the reason I'm here and not in a religious forum there I wouldnt find such answers--
If you are looking for answers then go and find the religious Forum, where you will find that answers are easy and cheap. Philosophy is more to do with how to ask, what to ask and to figure out if questions are worthy
QED - you need a religious forum.Walgekaaren wrote:A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods":
"How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?" Selah Defend the
cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the
weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. "They know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken." "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High."But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance. Ps 82:1-8 NIV
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?" John 10:34 NIV
If we are gods why then dont we act like gods? Why is our creation still stronger than us? All the comersials and thoughts are mightier than us. Why is it that man cannot rule the world but the dollar bill?
You'll need to lighten up a bit, one mans philosophy is other mans religion.chaz wyman wrote:QED - you need a religious forum.Walgekaaren wrote:A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods":
"How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?" Selah Defend the
cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the
weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. "They know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken." "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High."But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance. Ps 82:1-8 NIV
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?" John 10:34 NIV
If we are gods why then dont we act like gods? Why is our creation still stronger than us? All the comersials and thoughts are mightier than us. Why is it that man cannot rule the world but the dollar bill?
In a philosophical forum I can see views different from mine and advance my knoledge a bit. 
I like to think outside of the box... That can be done on 'nomansland' there are no Christian dogmas around what say which is the right way to worship Christ. A claping with one hand like the budists say. Because we are created in God's image?Walgekaaren wrote:
I'll summarise my previous post to you in different words: "Why is it difficult to be good and act rightfully then we know whats good and how to act? If we see a wallet with 100 dollars in it, why are we tempted to not seek its owner but keep it?"
I dont follow your answer is it like the answers there the question says Jesus on it right before you ask it?artisticsolution wrote:Because we are created in God's image?Walgekaaren wrote:
I'll summarise my previous post to you in different words: "Why is it difficult to be good and act rightfully then we know whats good and how to act? If we see a wallet with 100 dollars in it, why are we tempted to not seek its owner but keep it?"
