For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
LOL , then you must at once, be really genuine and honest, and warn all those adoring fans you call pussy, that you are not for sale, or to be idolised or to be put on a peddling pedestal..Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 8:10 pm Note: Today 30 June 2023 I have undertaken the writing of my memoirs.
The Epigraph:
Be the flame, not the moth.
Again, for some here this becomes a really, really important point of contention. On and on they'll go trying to provide evidence to support the belief that Jesus Christ was more than just [possibly] a historical figure back then. Or to debunk the evidence.Christian intellectuals have responded in diverse ways to what some secularists believe to be the Achilles heel of the Christian faith; namely, that Biblical scholarship has revealed how untrustworthy the New Testament narratives could be about Jesus, and how little is known for certain about his life and his message.
Right, "positivistic historians". And all the rest of us? The "historically uncertain grounds" are more or less applicable?The secularist asks, ‘How can one be asked to be a Christian on such historically uncertain grounds?’ Orthodox Christian apologists have tended to dismiss this skeptical scholarship as the product of non-believing positivistic historians, who simply reject the supernaturalistic elements of the Gospels out of hand.
And this has exactly what to do the fate of our souls on the die we die?But secularists found this response less and less compelling as it became increasingly evident that many of the scholars in the forefront of the thinking that has come to these skeptical conclusions are Christian. Consequently another, more sophisticated, Christian apologetic has emerged, which has attempted to save the New Testament picture of Jesus without embracing the supernaturalistic elements in it.
...means?The sophistication of this apologetic lies in turning the argument about the negative results of Biblical scholarship into a debate about hermeneutics. Their argument is that the skeptical views of the historical reliability of the Gospel narratives result from a positivist model of historiography, in which the historian claims to be an objective inquirer who simply seeks to ‘recreate the past as it really was’, to use the famous phrase of Leopold von Ranke. The historian, like the scientist, tries to sort out the facts of the matter; to distinguish fact from interpretation. But, the new Christian apologist claims, this positivistic model of historical inquiry has been shown to be outmoded for two reasons: the positivist view of science to which it was attached has been refuted; and with it the correspondence theory of truth has become obsolete.
The exalted state has no followers, I don't think you unerstand my excited little bunny hunny wabbit. You cannot buy your way to truth. But in your delusion, you will take the money and run, but you will not be able to take it to where you are running to, the only place you exist for real, the graveyard.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:17 pm But, but I am for sale. Well, I mean the Email Course is available as a sober investment for the discriminating mature intellect. (If I recall how the blurb for the course reads).
Everything I do and say is ultra-genuine and ultra-honest. You don’t get to the exalted state any other way, Madame!
I discourage idolization as a matter of course but for some no other type of relationship but worshipful admiration seems possible.
Je le tolère donc.
Some jest about having vices. Some jest about having virtues. I'd give you advice, AJ, but advice is not something I want to give for various reasons.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 9:17 pm But, but I am for sale. Well, I mean the Email Course is available as a sober investment for the discriminating mature intellect. (If I recall how the blurb for the course reads).
Everything I do and say is ultra-genuine and ultra-honest. You don’t get to the exalted state any other way, Madame!
I discourage idolization as a matter of course but for some no other type of relationship but worshipful admiration seems possible.
Je le tolère donc.
The fuss is about whether or not one needs to "accept" Christ as one's "savior" in order to avoid going to hell or eternal damnation (or whatever it is we are said to be avoiding).
Simply unbelievable!
Well, if I do say so myself.
Nihilism: "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless"
Essentially meaningless.
Christianity not only provides mere mortals with a divine meaning and purpose on this side of the grave, this meaning and purpose then continues on for all of eternity on the other side of it.
Many nihilists start with the assumption that precisely because there is no God -- no One True Path to enlightenment, immortality and salvation -- mere mortals "down here" have for centuries sustained endless conflicts regarding possible secular equivalents of God and religion. Ideological, deontological and the like.
So you say. Yet over and again I have noted I don't exclude my own point of view from my own point of view. I merely start with the assumption that in a No God world we mere mortals have for centuries now [philosophically and otherwise] attempted to "think up" the secular equvalent of God.
What never ceases to amaze me are those here who have engaged in exchanges with me for years and yet still manage to completely misconstrue my thinking regarding meaning and purpose and value given human interactions in a No God world.
I do not argue that there is no meaning or no morality or no value. I suggest instead that given my own rooted existentially in dasein grasp of human interactions in a No God, it seems reasonable to me "here and now" that neither scientists nor philosophers nor ethicists have come up with a moral agenda that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to subscribe to.
Seriously, what's that supposed to mean?!
So, the only way his reaction to me makes sense is that above all, he doesn't want to ever believe that my own "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy might one day become his own. So, for that crucial reason alone I must be wrong!!!
Seriously, what's that supposed to mean?!
Who knows. Does it matter if dishonesty causes serious problems vs exceptionally serious problems? If dishonesty causes problems then it's doubtful a matter of "if this dishonest act is less serious than another dishonest act unrelated to it, then it must be OK to be dishonest in the least dishonest of the two cases."promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 8:53 pm Even worse than the great black Friday gold corner of 1869?
You have an excuse for everything you say and for every way that you say it.So you say. Yet over and again I have noted I don't exclude my own point of view from my own point of view. I merely start with the assumption that in a No God world we mere mortals have for centuries now [philosophically and otherwise] attempted to "think up" the secular equvalent of God.
Okay, look around at the world we live in today: how close have we come?
It means I write "meaning" instead of "essential meaning" or "inherent meaning" and you have a conniption.Seriously, what's that supposed to mean?!phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 7:49 pm
What's amazing is how little slack you give people.
It means your response was defensive. And there was no reason for it since I wasn't saying anything which was an attack on you.Seriously, what's that supposed to mean?!phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:49 pm
Nobody is attacking you. Nobody is saying you're wrong. You can safely drop your gloves.
So you say.phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 1:49 pmYou have an excuse for everything you say and for every way that you say it.So you say. Yet over and again I have noted I don't exclude my own point of view from my own point of view. I merely start with the assumption that in a No God world we mere mortals have for centuries now [philosophically and otherwise] attempted to "think up" the secular equivalent of God.
Okay, look around at the world we live in today: how close have we come?
You first.
phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 7:49 pm
What's amazing is how little slack you give people.
Seriously, what's that supposed to mean?!
Well, in my view, moral objectivists -- Christians? -- of your ilk "have a conniption" when those of my ilk suggest a crucial distinction between meaning in the either/or world and meaning in the is/ought world. For your ilk, morality is just another component of the either/or world. Either others think exactly as they do about good and evil, or they are wrong. It's just that for some Christians here it also means being "left behind" and/or "burning in Hell for all of eternity".
Seriously, what's that supposed to mean?!phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 2:49 pm
Nobody is attacking you. Nobody is saying you're wrong. You can safely drop your gloves.
So you say.