Christianity

[Nick_A]

Okay guys, as you bragged that you know but could not demonstrate how the world will come to worship one God, and be of one accord.

See the essay, Binary Recursion Demonstrated on this GPD. page, examine, see what Socrates saw, Plato, and the author of the Bible.

And then consider, who is really autistic.

Adam and Eve are a Conjugate Binary Pair, whereby Complete induction produce the life of man.

I could explain theoretically Why the world cannot be unified under one God and if you are capable of a degree of impartiality you will see why it isn't wanted. Christianity for the world is just a potential. It is for some individuals. As a whole or what Plato called the Beast, we are we lack the quality of attention to receive from above and remain enchanted with the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave and do what we can to justify and defend them.

Simone Weil, First and Last Notebooks, translated by Richard Rees (London: Oxford University Press, 1970.)

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.

The Beast doesn't want what Jesus brought. That is why he had to be killed. The Beast doesn't know how Jesus sacrifice produces the Resurrection and the purpose of Jesus death. The Beast could never appreciate it.

[henry quirk]

It's the social world that provides you with the mental tools to choose whether or not you consent.

Of course not. My Ma gave me the words to describe natural rights, but my right to myself and my capacity to self-direct, these aren't learned or bestowed, they're recognized, and most folks, I think, recognize this early on, before language.

Good on your mother for teaching you.

Yeah, she's a good egg.

However she was not reared apart from others, and probably had other children to play with. Young children learn how to get on with each other and cooperate through play.

I reckon folks exercise their natural skills at interactin' thru, for example, play. Doesn't seem to me anyone learns how to cooperate.

[Phil8659]

Nick_A

So, bravo. You can say that God is a liar. That is something I cannot do, but my work, which I pointed to does call you a liar. And it is the natural outcome of evolution, the very job of a functional mind.

[Phil8659]

So, let me ask all you Bible Scholars. We we prove things by Mosaic Law, which is identical to the fundamental principles of science, and even claimed by Jesus shall be held to in Full, or do we test words, by doctrines, and theories, which toss out the fundamentals of verification by claiming that we can fudge the numbers, and every thing looks hunky dory?

By the very definition of a thing, it is a binary construct, a standard of behavior, called a unit. And by binary recursion, we even learn how to count, 1 + 1 + 1, the very foundation of science that a great number of wanna-be scientist effective toss out. So, can you count, or are you an idiot? By Mosaic Law, the demands of Christ, the demands of science, the demands of every possible system of grammar?

[Phil8659]

The so called Old Testament called the Torah and Prophets, or the Law and the Prophets, give you two ways to follow Law, the literal and the intelligible.
The intelligible goes, At the mouth of two or more RELIABLE witnesses is a thing true. Now, after claiming and showing, all the time, that mankind is not reliable, what then are the two witnesses of God, or Truth?

Do you think you can choose them? or
Adam and Eve are a Conjugate Binary Pair whereby Complete Induction and Deduction produce the life of man. It is a metaphor and transformed is the same definition as counting, of every possible system of grammar, i.e. judgment, of how the computer works, and it is even given again in the very first sentence of the Book of John. Let your yea's be yea's and your nay's be nay's. Binary recursion, the knowing that the unit provides all of judgment, also called a standard of behavior. If you do not have the wit to understand that a mind, when functional can demonstrate the unity of everything, then you cannot ever produce the unity claimed will happen on earth.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A

So, bravo. You can say that God is a liar. That is something I cannot do, but my work, which I pointed to does call you a liar. And it is the natural outcome of evolution, the very job of a functional mind.

When you begin with an absurd premise that God is a liar, there is nothing intelligent to build upon. You are better off arguing the absurdity of politics. Leave the purpose of Christianity out of it.

[Belinda]

The so called Old Testament called the Torah and Prophets, or the Law and the Prophets, give you two ways to follow Law, the literal and the intelligible.
The intelligible goes, At the mouth of two or more RELIABLE witnesses is a thing true. Now, after claiming and showing, all the time, that mankind is not reliable, what then are the two witnesses of God, or Truth?

Do you think you can choose them? or
Adam and Eve are a Conjugate Binary Pair whereby Complete Induction and Deduction produce the life of man. It is a metaphor and transformed is the same definition as counting, of every possible system of grammar, i.e. judgment, of how the computer works, and it is even given again in the very first sentence of the Book of John. Let your yea's be yea's and your nay's be nay's. Binary recursion, the knowing that the unit provides all of judgment, also called a standard of behavior. If you do not have the wit to understand that a mind, when functional can demonstrate the unity of everything, then you cannot ever produce the unity claimed will happen on earth.

The first sentence of the Gospel of John is not binary though. Logos is Jesus Christ who is light in the ambient darkness.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

However I don't think light and darkness i.e. good and evil is a binary relationship because binary implies equality. John claims good and evil have different properties. Light has the property of overcoming darkness but not vice versa. This is not like the binary system where 0 and 1 are exclusively either/or and in order to be exclusively either/or have to be equally weighted.

In the beginning God i.e. unity made good and evil but good was weighted to have the edge on evil.

[Phil8659]

Belinda

and how do you come to believe that binary implies equality? who ever even taught that?
now I have WordWeb pro with 8 dictionaries, and even use one online, what you say you believe is not in any of them.

could you be confusing it with the word tautology?

the first sentence in John is a very good metaphor, I walk it down in some of my essays in my work.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The first word in a sentence is defined by, is with, a relative, and was, an absolute, i.e. a word is defined as a combination, a conjugate binary pair, of a relative and correlative.
That is how the metaphor resolves.

[Belinda]

My slight and possibly incorrect knowledge of the binary system includes that 0 and 1 are mutually exclusive. True, in the decimal system 2+2 and 4 are the same but that's a difference in notation or form(tautology)not a difference in meaning.

[Phil8659]

My slight and possibly incorrect knowledge of the binary system includes that 0 and 1 are mutually exclusive. True, in the decimal system 2+2 and 4 are the same but that's a difference in notation or form(tautology)not a difference in meaning.

I finished my answer above yours, thank you.

Let me try it again, Truth is a combination of a reliable witness of a relative and a reliable witness of a correlative. Which may not be easier for you to see, but think about it. It is not only a beautiful metaphor, it was written by Christ's wife, which means, she was incredibly smart.

[Belinda]

Belinda

and how do you come to believe that binary implies equality? who ever even taught that?
now I have WordWeb pro with 8 dictionaries, and even use one online, what you say you believe is not in any of them.

could you be confusing it with the word tautology?

the first sentence in John is a very good metaphor, I walk it down in some of my essays in my work.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The first word in a sentence is defined by, is with, a relative, and was, an absolute, i.e. a word is defined as a combination, a conjugate binary pair, of a relative and correlative.
That is how the metaphor resolves.

I doubt if the metaphor does resolve in the way you seem to claim.

In the beginning (the beginning is God, unity) was the Word(the Word is Logos, Jesus Christ the embodiment of good). The metaphor goes on to say good trumps evil. This is inbuilt inequality between good and evil, light and darkness. Therefore God is good.

Maybe because I don't know your terminology I misunderstand your meaning. For instance I don't know what a "conjugate binary pair" is apart from Adam and Eve.The term may apply to Adam and Eve but it doesn't follow it applies to maths.

[Phil8659]

At any rate, the sentence in the front of the book, God created man etc, is indicative of a perceptible example of binary recursion.
The First sentence in John is an intelligible example as grammar is applied to judgment. Which is actually as it should be.

The term Conjugate Binary Pair means that in the definition of a thing, although as Aristotle notes it, these two cannot exist apart, i.e. they are married. As they cannot exist apart, one has to have a certain level of intelligence to understand definition, starting with the definition of a thing. Conjugate Binary Pair is just a synonym for unit, thing, etc.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My thoughts on recent developments?

God help us.

Time for another bikepacking trip . . .

[Nick_A]

My thoughts on recent developments?

God help us.

Time for another bikepacking trip . . .

You can't run. The logic of Christianity will remain hidden from secular eyes. The darkness within society remains dominant

[Alexis Jacobi]

You can't run. The logic of Christianity will remain hidden from secular eyes. The darkness within society remains dominant.

It is possible (i.e. likely) I am not making myself clear. I do not find the last series of posts to do anything at all to further 'productive conversation'. "Ah but!" I would then say "We do not in any sense agree on what productivity is!"

So it all begins to look like what it in fact really is: absurd. The absurd manifests when it is not so much 'important ideas' that are the concern of participants but something else. What is that? When people are consumed by their own subjectivity (and cannot see around it).

I have often reduced it to the word 'bickering'. I have come to see that, for some, bickering is actually the object! To bicker inanely is (I gather) a satisfying pastime. Maybe it is the reason (some) people stick around? (Speaking generally of these forums).

The term 'absurd' is a postmodern one. And this conversation takes place within postmodern intellectual circumstances. There is no way around that! And no escape from that. From that one cannot run. And no matter where one runs one will run into the quagmires of confused ideas. Literally so much upheaval within those structures (in the mind and in perception) through which a view and understanding of the world is formed, and these views and understanding do not coincide! that the result is a postmodern pastiche of the absurd. A recent arrival offers just such a picture of the absurdism I refer to.

The thing is this might be taken *personally* by some who write here. It is not meant that way! Bickering-style critiques -- bicker-jabbing it might be called -- serve no constructive function (though it certainly has a function).

Our Present is not just somewhat absurd . . . it has become totally infused with absurdity.

Now how shall I take 'the logic of Christianity' if I understand, as I do understand, that the field of surrounding life, and the life and ideas that enter here on this thread, are infused with absurdity? I do not think my position, originally articulated, has in any sense changed: Every person only has their own personal realm, their 'within', their personal conscious field, as the area that they have ultimately to work with when it pertains to what you, Nick, often put emphasis in. I do not deny exterior relationships, duties, actions, etc. but my point is clear: If anything is *done* it is done internally. And what is done can hardly be communicated even between people who are very close in orientation and where confidence exists.

Unlike you (to all appearances) I take "the darkness within society" (that is within persons) to be the norm. In this sense I am not very amenable to utopian idealism. I could sort of go along with The Beast abstraction, but all abstractions are faulty and no abstraction should ever be taken as a sufficient picture. What is 'dominant' in life is, essentially, what life is.

And what shall I do? start crying? Hide away? Bewail that it is so?