Philosophy Now Forum

I believe this is what you are trying for.

Belinda linda
Bo binda
Banana fanna
Fo finda
Fe fi mo minda
Belinda!

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 12:10 am I believe this is what you are trying for.

Belinda linda
Bo binda
Banana fanna
Fo finda
Fe fi mo minda
Belinda!

U broke the rules dude, but it's ok on International Bonkers Day..

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 10:54 am Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, please tell me what you know about what you are calling a "proper" way to relate to God. What makes it "proper," and how do you know?

Belinda replies:
It's common knowledge that most people in the UK and Europe generally don't have faith in a supernatural way of being, nor miracles.
Christianity is a good and great religion because a man who is a also a movable icon is its paradigm of goodness.
In order for Xianity to retain any power for good in today's world we need to re-interpret it. "A proper way to relate to God" is the existentialist way. There is no essence that is God but we may create the spirit of good, truth, and beauty by our words and acts.Indeed, without man's creating spirit there could be no Christianity.

"It's common knowledge." Do you have reason to think that the way to know God is "common knowledge"? I don't think you do. Whatever the attitude in the UK to faith, supernatural or miracles, it doesn't really count for or against any of them.

I don't doubt many have the desire to "reinterpret." But I don't think that's a good impulse. After all, people believe in transcendent values because they hope that by following a higher standard they can improve their moral condition, or better yet, find a metaphysic that adds meaning to an otherwise potential meaning-devoid existence. A "religion" is only as good as it is convincing that you ought to surrender some aspects of your own self-will to it, in a gesture of meaningful sacrifice to the higher goods. If it can't do that, it really serves no purpose at all, and you'd be just as well without any.

As for the Existentialist way, it's of extremely recent vintage, and pretty much solely the purview of Kierkegaard. The rest of the Existentialists -- Nietzsche (if he counts), Sartre, Camus and Heidegger, for example, all hated God and had no use for "religion" at all. Rather, their focus was the self, not transcendence. Existence, for them, was essentially "absurd." There was no such thing as ethics, really, because there was no transcendent basis for any; and whatever "meaning" there was for existence had to be invented fresh by every individual, not understood through any tradition or corporate kind of life. (Heidegger thought there was a corporate dimension, but he mistook it for the "blood and soil" religion of the Third Reich.)

Man's creating spirit has, according to Christianity, no role in generating Christianity. To believe that it does, one would have to step outside of Christianity, to some kind of Humanist skepticism, and redescribe Christianity as just another "religious" delusion mankind has produced. Christianity itself won't join you in that: it claims authorization from God Himself, not from human "creativity."

In any case, in Existentialist thinking, whether Kierkegaardian, or Sartrean, or whatever, "creativity" of that sort has no dignity. It's not a thing to boast about. Kierkegaard would have said it's devoid of faith, and Sartre would have called it "bad faith."

Immanuel Can wrote:

I don't doubt many have the desire to "reinterpret." But I don't think that's a good impulse. After all, people believe in transcendent values because they hope that by following a higher standard they can improve their moral condition, or better yet, find a metaphysic that adds meaning to an otherwise potential meaning-devoid existence. A "religion" is only as good as it is convincing that you ought to surrender some aspects of your own self-will to it, in a gesture of meaningful sacrifice to the higher goods. If it can't do that, it really serves no purpose at all, and you'd be just as well without any.

I understand how you feel.You say "transcendent" values, meaning values that transcend mere human reasonings and affections; this sort of transcendence is based on a supernatural way of being. For a Judeo Christian, the otherwise inscrutable supernatural deity is interpreted to us by the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

My stance is like "A "religion" is only as good as it is convincing that you ought to surrender some aspects of your own self-will to it, in a gesture of meaningful sacrifice to the higher goods. If it can't do that, it really serves no purpose at all, and you'd be just as well without any." (IC)

I hope you agree with me that supernatural miracles are not generally credible this year.

Belinda

Superstition is defined as something not understood. Fate in Greek philosophy and religion controls major life events. Sophocles and Homer in literature as well as the Fates: Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos. This contradicts free will and moral responsibility. Again, good is subjective, truth is what in fact is the case, and beauty is a form. Common knowledge makes sense, according, Voltaire and is not that common. God is a title, not a name. Existentialism is an ethical theory.

Immanuel Can

Kierkegaard wrote in paradoxes as, “One is not born a Christinan, but becomes a Christian.” Sarte believed, “Existence precedes essence” you are responsible to create who you are, continually. Two entirely different writers.

puto wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:17 am Sarte believed, “Existence precedes essence” you are responsible to create who you are, continually. Two entirely different writers.

Without guard rails this mindset devolves into identity politics...

https://youtu.be/BwuaxJ0RsKo?si=hSEXP3UZb2ZMLkOj

Of course, you could create a narrative of who you are, but at some point you get bored of childish games and you have to accept there is also an element of discovery in the process. It's not all just meaning-making - this is where embodied cognition comes into play.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

puto wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:17 am

Belinda

Superstition is defined as something not understood.

You won't find that definition anywhere, actually.

Existentialism is an ethical theory.

Actually, most Existentialists believe it has no particular moral position, and are quite enthused about that fact. They claim "radical freedom" in regard to all ethics. And you can see that at least the secular version of Existentialism really doesn't have any particular precepts. It denies itself the grounds for any particular moral axioms.

Immanuel Can

Kierkegaard wrote in paradoxes as, “One is not born a Christinan, but becomes a Christian.” Sarte believed, “Existence precedes essence” you are responsible to create who you are, continually. Two entirely different writers.

That's not actually a "paradox": it's a plain statement of truth, one that is completely in keeping with Biblical theology. One cannot be "born a Christian." One has to be "born again to become a Christian." (See John 3:16) Christianity is a personal faith, not a communal birthright.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:06 am I hope you agree with me that supernatural miracles are not generally credible this year.

Alas, you shall be disappointed. God has radical freedom to do whatever it is He chooses. After all, He's God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:56 pm One cannot be "born a Christian." One has to be "born again to become a Christian." (See John 3:16) Christianity is a personal faith, not a communal birthright.

As I had always asserted, a Christian must enter into a "contract" [new covenant] with a binding agreement to form a relation with Christ/God by accepting the 'offer' from John 3:16 and pay the 'consideration' with the surrender of one's life to God.
The terms of the contract is solely within the words of Christs, i.e. the Gospel and no where else. The OT, Acts and epistles are merely appendixes and guides to the terms of the contract.

The principles of contract law include:
Offer and acceptance: A contract must be made through an offer and acceptance.
Consideration: There must be an exchange of something of value.
Intention to create legal relations: The parties must have a clear intention to create a legal contract.
Certainty of terms: The terms of the contract must be clear.
Legally competent parties: The parties involved in the contract must be legally competent.
Meeting of the minds: The parties must agree on the terms of the contract.
Legality of purpose: The purpose of the contract must be legal [divine]
Google AI quickie

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:22 am

puto wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:17 am Sarte believed, “Existence precedes essence” you are responsible to create who you are, continually. Two entirely different writers.

Without guard rails this mindset devolves into identity politics...

https://youtu.be/BwuaxJ0RsKo?si=hSEXP3UZb2ZMLkOj

Of course, you could create a narrative of who you are, but at some point you get bored of childish games and you have to accept there is also an element of discovery in the process. It's not all just meaning-making - this is where embodied cognition comes into play.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

The guard rails are ordinary human kindness i.e."embodied cognition" **. In theory the free man can , against all his natural instincts, strangle his cat to prove he is free but this is a thought experiment. he does not actually do it.

**For embodied cognition expressed in poetry see Lady Macbeth 'Come to my woman's breasts and take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,----- . '

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 4:02 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:06 am I hope you agree with me that supernatural miracles are that is

Alas, you shall be disappointed. God has radical freedom to do whatever it is He chooses. After all, He's God.

As stated, miracles are not generally credible in 2024.
Church congregations are dwindled into non-existence and church buildings are being used as carpet showrooms, or as architectural museum pieces if they merit that.
Evangelical churches are increasing in popularity but they too will fail in line with better education standards and levels.
The exception is gospel choirs and other arts that allow people to express their feelings without any attempt at intellectual analysis. We can all feel the pathos of a pieta sculpture or painting, and we can feel the fellowship of emotion in the performance of a gospel choir. Many hymns in standard hymn books express feelings beautifully despite they don't bear scientific analysis.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 4:02 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 11:06 am I hope you agree with me that supernatural miracles are that is

Alas, you shall be disappointed. God has radical freedom to do whatever it is He chooses. After all, He's God.

As stated, miracles are not generally credible in 2024.

Really? Wouldn't one think "miracles" more credible with comprehension here in 2024 of tech, all knowing AI, simulation theory?

Belinda wrote:Church congregations are dwindled into non-existence and church buildings are being used as carpet showrooms, or as architectural museum pieces if they merit that.

Meaning wot? That people are increasingly atheist and turning their back on LOVE & TRUST - ergo, societal devolution...forgetting what Christ went through for said Love & Trust..

Belinda wrote:Evangelical churches are increasing in popularity but they too will fail in line with better education standards and levels.

Stupidity remains whether it be atheist or USA evangelical idiocy.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 10:55 am The guard rails are ordinary human kindness i.e."embodied cognition" **. In theory the free man can , against all his natural instincts, strangle his cat to prove he is free but this is a thought experiment. he does not actually do it.

Well, what is freedom then if anything doesn't go?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 12:14 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 10:55 am The guard rails are ordinary human kindness i.e."embodied cognition" **. In theory the free man can , against all his natural instincts, strangle his cat to prove he is free but this is a thought experiment. he does not actually do it.

Well, what is freedom then if anything doesn't go?

Freedom is a motive and an aspiration not an essence. As motive and aspiration , freedom is relative to each Dasein.
Do you think that each Dasein faces the constant or ever-recurring question 'How free might you be?'

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 7:19 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 3:56 pm One cannot be "born a Christian." One has to be "born again to become a Christian." (See John 3:16) Christianity is a personal faith, not a communal birthright.

As I had always asserted, a Christian must enter into a "contract" [new covenant] with a binding agreement to form a relation with Christ/God by accepting the 'offer' from John 3:16 and pay the 'consideration' with the surrender of one's life to God.
The terms of the contract is solely within the words of Christs, i.e. the Gospel and no where else. The OT, Acts and epistles are merely appendixes and guides to the terms of the contract.

That's not even remotely accurate, I have to say. The Acts and Epistles are very clear on the gospel. I could prove that to you very, very easily.

Sorry to be so contradictory, but a statement so wildly wrong can hardly go without comment.