Christianity

[henry quirk]

Oh ye of little *faith. I know when to cut my losses.

*Mine is finite; I'm stingy with it, yes.

Understood, and fair enough, so, hopefully, you'll extend me a little more of your finitude when (if) the hair-splitting doesn't go on for more than a little bit - just enough to clarify what's what and draw a line under it.

I'm gonna read this thread (and, sometimes, participate in it) no matter *how much of a soap opera it becomes, so: do what you gotta.




*insert

[Harry Baird]

I'm gonna read this thread (and, sometimes, participate in it) no matter much of a soap opera it becomes, so: do what you gotta.

How much of a soap opera might this thread become? You just wait for the upcoming scenes in The Church of No One Truth (NOT): A Cautionary Tale!

[henry quirk]

I'm gonna read this thread (and, sometimes, participate in it) no matter much of a soap opera it becomes, so: do what you gotta.

How much of a soap opera might this thread become? You just wait for the upcoming scenes in The Church of No One Truth (NOT): A Cautionary Tale!

Oh, at times, it surely has moved at soap opera pace and with the same kind of drawn out melodrama.

Your play: I read the previous installments (Quirky?). I'll / when it's done.

[Harry Baird]

Your play: I read the previous installments (Quirky?). I'll / when it's done.

Excellent. "Quirky" has an entire scene together with the protagonist. That's coming up, so stay tuned. Thumbs up and down appreciated either way, so long as genuine.

[henry quirk]

Your play: I read the previous installments (Quirky?). I'll / when it's done.

Excellent. "Quirky" has an entire scene together with the protagonist. That's coming up, so stay tuned. Thumbs up and down appreciated either way, so long as genuine.

Thank Crom my skin is thick.

[Harry Baird]

Thank Crom my skin is thick.

Ah, no need for negative anticipation. "Quirky" doesn't in any way get roasted.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I might agree with you to an extent, depending on what you take to be "metaphysical". It is a word with different senses.

The way I think about the metaphysical is to imagine the Earth without human beings. The physical world, the world of motion and movement; the biological world, the world of the planetary system, is a world that operates according to immutable rules and laws. That world, the world in which we are ensconced, functions in no sense in accord with morality as we define it, and if one can discern ethics they can only be described as ecological ethics.

My understanding is that man might once have been just one other subject of this system, a part-and-parcel of it, a 'victim' of it. But something happens with and in man's awareness. I don't presume to know how this comes about but 'awareness' arises. And as we all know man's awareness is of a different sort. Man can examine his world, the world, from a 'height'. He can recognize and understand the rules of the physical and biological world and, this is my view, he is terrified to recognize that it is a terrifyingly cruel and unconscious reality. To exist, to get on and to prosper, life must feed on life in terrible cycles of relationship. Life consumes life, lives consumes lives.

But man entertains entirely different, and in fact (often) contradictory and opposing ideas. Where do they come from? They 'arise' in man and in conscious awareness. My understanding is that man sees the 'nature of the world' in its terrifying, unconscious and cruel aspect and names that 'evil'. It is as if 'the Lord of this world' is a demonic entity -- because to live in that world demands that one play by those rules. The celestial conception of God, and this is one essence of my own views, comes to man and is understood by man as an intervening and contrary force. If you don't want to see it as 'God' you could see it as a concept-set. These notions of God, these pictures of God, these representations of God and these projections of God always propose ethics and morals that run contrarily to the *way of the world*.

So I see this entire 'imposition' as representing what I mean by 'metaphysics'.

The notion of 'renunciation' is, I think, where acutely metaphysical ideas are given predominance. In a very real sense it is not possible to renounce life and the systems that define the material and biological world. We are stuck in this biological and material world. We must feed on life -- we must kill and consume -- in order to live. I see no way around this. But when we examine religious renunciation -- Christian, Buddhist, Vedic -- there is always the belief that through the modification of actions that consequences can be lessened or avoided. For Buddhists and Vedists it is the accrual of 'karma' ('sinful reactions') and for the Christian it is similar and yet with different twists.

The entire world is seen as having been corrupted by *original sin*. That is, an enormity of consequences (for some act) which caused a fall from a death-free 'world', from a world in which killing and consuming was not required activity, an eternal world free of consequences, and a falling down into a world of death, mutability, and rather terrifying consequences. The 'world' is seen as infected, and when you examine Christian notions, it is man who brought this about. Man's fall infected and distorted the cosmos. This is in fact the essence of Christian belief.

So the Redeemer, a personage with a celestial (heavenly) origin and abode (outside and beyond this world) incarnates into this fallen world, this world which is irreconcilable with man's idealism, and says "I will get you out of this trap and this mess". And here is expressed, in an ultimate sense, an imposition of metaphysical principles into an 'impossible world'. It has no part and no place in the world we know. It did not originate within this earthly system. It is therefore pictured as coming from outside of it (as an imposition) and as a fantastic disruption.

The idea of renunciation runs throughout Christian concepts and ethics. Civilization results, in so many ways, from the impulse to renounce. To sacrifice some blunt and immediate gain through a contrary imposition of a modifying ethics with the purpose of gaining something higher and better as a result.

So this is how I understand metaphysics in a nutshell.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC, is your belief in the Bible literal? That is to say, do you generally (or universally?) think that when it is written in the Bible that "so and so did such and such", that is generally (always?) a factually accurate reference to an actual historical character in an actual historical event? If only generally, and not universally/always, how do you distinguish between those which are and those which aren't?

This question, a good one, went unanswered. What I have come to understand is that it and questions like it will always be side-stepped. I think I understand now why this is so.

[Age]

Are you under some sort of illusion that such a state (everybody agreeing on something that's actually wrong) is logically impossible?

Of course it is NOT 'logically' impossible.

But the Fact remains that NOT EVERY one would agree on some thing as being true or right, if there was a possibility that that thing could be false or wrong.

The latter (which I've coloured red) is still a modal statement (with a predicate), which can be strictly reformulated as: "It is impossible for everybody to agree on some thing as true or right if that thing is possibly not true or right". You affirm, however, (in that which I've coloured blue) that the type of impossibility referred to in this statement is not logical impossibility. So, you must have some other sense of possibility in mind. What is it?

It is NOT 'physically' possible for EVERY one to agree on some thing being true or right if that thing is NOT true NOR right to begin with.

Maybe you mean something much looser like "pragmatic" impossibility?

If so, I'm not really interested in that sort of looseness of modality. If we are talking about knowing the One Truth, then I am interested in knowing for sure and incontrovertibly, so, something like "pragmatic" certainty isn't rigorous enough for me. Maybe it is or would be for others. And, as I wrote in a previous post, a (pragmatic) consensus - whether based on incontrovertible knowing or not - would at least be useful for socio-political stability.

How about we LOOK AT an example here;

Would you agree that human beings NEED air or oxygen, to live?

If yes, then is this A truth that EVERY one could also agree with?

If no, for either, then what are you basing that answer 9n, EXACTLY?

[Dubious]

Please point to the content of that message that invited Dube to go into a completely irrelevant spiral about "religion." He was just wildly off base.

You said...

Truth is not a matter of consensus

...which I countered by saying truth can be rooted in dogma (which can only be consensual) or truth which can be discovered objectively by research, inquiry, experiment etc.

How was I off base in simply replying to a statement you made? Care to explain?

[Harry Baird]

Phew. OK then. Huh. So much to say, but so little stamina for it, and no mandate (nor aesthetic will) to elaborate at massive length. Uwot, help! My free time is being whittled away! But briefly, then:

[T]he world in which we are ensconced, functions in no sense in accord with morality as we define it

AJ. OK. Look: your bird's eye view seems to be that Earth is a realm which is, intrinsically - that is, in and of itself, and in and of its own nature - amoral if not immoral, and that God - whether as a literal agency or merely as the imagined agency enabled via the God-concept in the mind of man - imposes a (higher) morality onto this, by nature, amoral if not immoral realm.

In the light of my post to which you were responding, then, what you mean by "metaphysical truth" is "(a higher) morality" - roughly, the third of the possibilities which I put to you.

So be it.

Nevertheless, the possibility that you raise - that God is merely a concept imagined by mankind - fits the first category of metaphysical truth that I put to you - so don't think that you're getting away with anything, because I'm noting that.

It would have been helpful if you could have clarified this yourself, but no matter. Let's ignore in this post, then, metaphysical truths other than the moral.

Now, what is the upshot of your sentiments given this brief synopsis of them? I think that it is basically that either a very, very rigorous theodicy needs to be provided, and/or that a very rigorous proof of God as the moral being we envisage to Him to be is provided in the light of the empirical facts, and/or that we ask even harder questions about the basic grounding of reality at the deepest level: is the deepest level of reality moral, amoral, or immoral, and why does or does not that correspond with our level of reality, in the light of God, whether as an actual or conceptual Being?

My friend, I hope that you appreciate the loving crafting of this message and especially its brevity, because it took a tonne of effort to write *as* brief a message as this, without waffling on too much. My best wishes to you.

[Immanuel Can]

Please point to the content of that message that invited Dube to go into a completely irrelevant spiral about "religion." He was just wildly off base.

I get it: Dubious was having what at face value was an irrelevant go at religious belief, and in particular yours, so I understand your (presumably reflexive) gainsaying reply to him - but, regardless of relevance, you misrepresented what he said.

No, I ignored his pointless detour, and put the conversation right back where I started it.

I don't owe him to follow him down his goofy rabbit-trail, just because he lays one down. I had been talking to you, not him, and I had said zippo about religion.

Do you accept this?

I do not accept any part of the irrelevant stuff he interjected.

My only point was to steer him back, by pointing out that I do not hold what he calls "religion" to any different standard than I was talking about.

and then added things I never said...

Oh? Are you saying that he attributed to you words that you never wrote? Which words in particular (exact quotes, please)?

Find the word "religion" or even it's implication in anything in my message to you. It's not there.

Oh? Are you saying that I've attributed to you words that you never wrote? Which words in particular (exact quotes, please)?

IC, by your own admission - i.e., paraphrased, "All of the religions other than Christianity are wrong"
I had made no such "admission," and no such claim.

If you think I did, then find it.

[Immanuel Can]

You said...

Truth is not a matter of consensus

...which I countered by saying truth can be rooted in dogma

Are you proud of that claim?

[Harry Baird]

Of course it is NOT 'logically' impossible.

But the Fact remains that NOT EVERY one would agree on some thing as being true or right, if there was a possibility that that thing could be false or wrong.

The latter (which I've coloured red) is still a modal statement (with a predicate), which can be strictly reformulated as: "It is impossible for everybody to agree on some thing as true or right if that thing is possibly not true or right". You affirm, however, (in that which I've coloured blue) that the type of impossibility referred to in this statement is not logical impossibility. So, you must have some other sense of possibility in mind. What is it?

It is NOT 'physically' possible for EVERY one to agree on some thing being true or right if that thing is NOT true NOR right to begin with.

Though you introduce the modality of "physical" possibility, you're still talking in terms of logical possibility. Your claim as-is can be strictly reformulated as "It is physically impossible for everybody to agree on some thing as true or right if that thing is possibly not true or right". But why should I accept this? I can easily imagine a scenario in which a physical group of people believe something to be true when it is not.

How about we LOOK AT an example here;

Would you agree that human beings NEED air or oxygen, to live?

If yes, then is this A truth that EVERY one could also agree with?

If no, for either, then what are you basing that answer 9n, EXACTLY?

Dude(tte), I don't, and I don't believe anybody else can, definitively claim a human need for air or oxygen as an incontrovertible truth. Truths like that are empirical and contingent. Just to bring this into the realm of reality: there are plausible claims that various Hindu sages have been buried underground for weeks, and thus did not, during that time, need air or oxygen to live. Even if you utterly reject those claims as plausible, they are nevertheless logically possible. You allow that you are not working with logical possibility, but that's what your "physical" modality reduces to. You'll need something else to convince me, then...

[Harry Baird]

The point is that it is implicit in your general position that you think that there are some purported (religious) truths (of religions other than Christianity) that are false, and thus affirm the point that Dubious made: that some so-called (religious) truths are (merely) purported (ETA: and persist via the consensus of religious authorities) rather than actual.

Do you accept this?

I do not accept any part of the irrelevant stuff he interjected.

That, along with the rest of your message, is such a slippery response that my mind is made up: you are not an honest player, and it's not worth continuing to prove as much. I'm out of this exchange, except for one final dynamic:

IC, by your own admission - i.e., paraphrased, "All of the religions other than Christianity are wrong"
I had made no such "admission," and no such claim.

If you think I did, then find it.

Aha. Let's try it another way though: are you capable of affirming to me that one or more religions other than Christianity is/are right? That's a direct question: is (or are) any religion(s) other than Christianity right?

After we get your direct (yes/no) answer to that question, then we can revisit your admission/claim.

You see where I'm going with this, of course. If you answer directly, then I will maintain some intellectual respect for you. Otherwise...