Philosophy Now Forum

Thanks, Nick_A. That helps me to understand your perspective a lot better.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:53 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:47 pm

I've proved to you that the "Good Book" is contradictory, and, thus, that it is unreliable, and thus, your quotes from it are irrelevant to the establishment of truth.

Respond to that proof or don't; as it stands, your "Good Book" has no credibility.

Is it POSSIBLE, at all, that what is, supposedly, 'proved' in that link is NOT 'contradictory' REALLY?

That would entail the possibility of either the argument being invalid, or one of its premises being false.

Or, it could entail that one of the premises is NOT 'false', from the interpreted version, which you use, but is actually False, from an irrefutable version. or sense.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:17 pm It seems perfectly valid to me, so it is POSSIBLY unsound only if one of its premises is false.

And, as I was saying NONE of the 'premises' are 'false' to 'you', and 'your' point of view. But, they could be absolutely False to "another's" point of view or to even the way that was intended within the bible.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:17 pm The only contestable premises, it seems to me, are the ones (numbers one and two) I've labelled "Christian" in the sense of being Biblically based as Christians like Immanuel Can interpret the Bible. As hq has pointed out, some other Christians interpret it differently. The argument is not (wholly) applicable to them, but might become applicable given a minor adjustment to premises two and three.

The Fact that there are premises, contestable, because of people's different interpretations or versions, SHOWS, and REVEALS, just how much, and just how quickly, a 'quagmire' can arise through just 'discussing' these issues, let alone when 'trying to 'argue' for one's OWN point of view of 'things'.

If so-called "christians" can NOT even agree on a 'version' of 'things', within the bible, then what hope is there for the rest of 'us'?

And, this DIFFERENCE of 'opinion' about what words mean, and were/are intended to me, was the point I was making in regards to how, from "immanuel can's" perspective, the way you wrote 'your' premises, they are NOT the SAME version, interpretation, NOR intention, which "immanuel can" SEES.

From "immanuel can's" perspective, it it like 'you' are 'trying to' TRICK "immanuel can" into AGREEING with some 'thing', which "immanuel can" does NOT, and nor WILL NOT.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:17 pm So, if you want to try to explain on Immanuel Can's behalf how either of those two premises do not reflect his interpretation of the Bible, then go right ahead.

It is NEVER up to 'me' to explain NOR reflect on "another's" interpretation of 'things'. It is ALWAYS up to each and EVERY one "themselves", to express their OWN views and/or positions. I could give 'my perspective', which would have to be CORRECTED or verified by "immanuel can" anyway. So, "immanuel can" might as well speak for itself.

Oh, and by the way, I can only REALLY give my OWN explanation of WHY those two, and/or any other, premises are NOT absolutely True, Right, and Correct. But we are still a long way from getting to 'there', just yet.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:17 pm It would be quite a strange thing to do, but you're free to give it a go, especially seeing that Immanuel Can himself refuses to.

"immanuel can" IS RUNNING AWAY and HIDING, because "immanuel can" KNOWS what it is like to TRICK and FOOL "others" into SAYING and/or BELIEVING some 'things'. "immanuel can" does NOT want to be a 'victim', exactly from what "immanuel can" does to "others".

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:53 am I am just WONDERING If, from your perspective, that BOTH BOTH of YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the bible could BOTH be just a Wrong INTERPRETATION?

It's possible, but I've read the Bible from cover to cover, and the Gospels several times, and premises #1 and #2 seem to me to be pretty clearly endorsed and supported by the Bible.

I have forgotten what premise 1. and 2. are, but just like "immanuel can", you BOTH appear to BELIEVE that your OWN interpretation of what the bible says is the true, right, AND correct one. Then, add that to EVERY other human being who ALSO has their VERY OWN interpretation, which they ALL BELIEVE is the true, right, and correct one, then we are ALL 'back to square one', as some say.

I just suggest that BEFORE absolutely ANY one BELIEVES that they HAVE the ONLY true, right, and correct version/interpretation of the bible, or ANY thing, that they just REMAIN OPEN to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from "other" perspectives.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:17 pm To be clear, I'm saying that I share IC's interpretation of the Bible in respect to these two premises, so there is only one interpretation in this respect, not two as you imply.

REALLY?

Would BOTH 'you' AND "immanuel can" care to SHARE your very OWN interpretations so that we can SEE that they MATCH and ALIGN, PERFECTLY?

I will now take a LOOK AT your interpretation of the bible, which will be expressed CLEARLY in the two premises, which you wrote, and then WAIT for "immanuel can's" interpretation. To SEE if there REALLY is just ONE interpretation, and NOT two AT ALL here.

1. God is fundamentally (essentially) loving and just [Christian premise].
2. God condemns to eternal (infinite), unimaginable torment any person who, in living his/her finite life, has sinned and refused to accept Jesus Christ as his/her saviour [Christian premise].

As for 1. I can SEE that "immanuel can" may well agree with THIS interpretation, but as I have ALREADY PROVED True, with "immanuel can" anyway, that until one KNOWS, without doubt, what the God IS, EXACTLY, then that one does NOT KNOW HOW God IS, fundamentally, loving AND just.

As for 2. If that is BOTH of 'your' interpretations, then BOTH of 'you' could NOT be FURTHER from what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS.

The WHOLE message about 'eternal hell' has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with how it is interpreted and portrayed here.

What is written in the bible HAS TO MAKE SENSE, if it is to be read, and if it is meant to be taken SERIOUSLY.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:17 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:53 am Furthermore, I would like to LOOK AT 'your' CLAIM 'proof', and DISCUSS 'it', later on if you would like to as well?

Go ahead if you like. If you think you can point out an invalid inference or a false premise in the argument, then you're welcome to give it a try.

From your later post:

Age wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:57 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:17 am What do you think is tricky and deceptive about [my argument]?

Your misinterpretation.

If you would like clearer examples, more elaboration, or further clarity, then just let me know, okay?

Again, if you wish to share your own interpretation of the Bible, which falsifies either of premises #1 or #2, then go ahead.

I have absolutely NO interest in sharing my OWN interpretations of the bible, unless, OF COURSE, someone SHOWS INTEREST in my OWN interpretation.

And, if ANY one does, then they will ASK the appropriate question/s. Until then, I just WAIT.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:17 pm Continue to be aware though that the argument assumes the Biblical interpretation of Immanuel Can and Christians like him, so your alternative interpretation would not in any case affect its soundness.

1. There is NO 'biblical' interpretation. ONLY human beings 'interpret' 'things'. If you and "immanuel can" come to the SAME conclusion that what is said and written in the bible MEANS that the 'thing', which the word 'God' refers to, EXACTLY, is a fundamentally and essentially a loving AND just 'Thing', then that IS GREAT. ONLY through AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE can things like this here MOVE ALONG. So, 'you' BOTH might AGREE ON and ACCEPT the first premise.

2. My interpretation FITS IN with what MAKES ACTUAL and PERFECT SENSE, and, and because, IT IS IRREFUTABLE. But one would first HAVE TO LEARN and FULLY UNDERSTAND what I just SAID and WROTE here, BEFORE they INTERPRET ANY thing, which could be False, Wrong, or Incorrect. That is; if they REALLY want to INTERPRET what I just said and wrote Correctly. So, in fact, my interpretation could very well affect the so-called 'soundness' of YOUR argument here.

3. I do NOT like to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing, due to the effects that this can have, and cause, and, by definition, what is ASSUMED could just be False, Wrong, or Incorrect anyway. So, if the argument ASSUMES SOME 'thing', like how it does above, then 'the argument', itself, could just be Wrong and/or Incorrect to begin with.

4. Although the first premise may be AGREED UPON by "immanuel can", the second premise may well NOT. We will have to WAIT, and SEE.

5. From my interpretation of the bible, I AGREE WITH and ACCEPT your first premise. I, however, do NOT agree with NOR accept your second premise AT ALL. Also, from how I read the bible, there is absolutely NOTHING written in there that SAYS ANY thing like you have interpreted and portrayed here. But, maybe you can link us somewhere or to some thing, which SHOWS otherwise? Again, we will have to WAIT and SEE.

6. If you REALLY want to KNOW WHY, from my perspective and interpretation, there is absolutely NOTHING in the bible about God condemning a person to unimaginable torment for eternity, and that this is just your OWN interpretation, ONLY, then I am sure 'you' will ASK 'me' the right question/s.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:31 pm

And, you KNOW FAR MORE, right, "henry quirk"?

Of the Wild People? Oh yes, and of the Tcho-Tcho and the Inhabitants of Dunwich and the goin's on in Arkham and of the Whateley bloodline.

Have you LIVED WITH 'these people'? Or, just READ ABOUT 'them', "henry quirk"?

If you READ ABOUT 'them', was it TOLD from 'their' perspective, or were they just STORIES/INTERPRETATIONS just TOLD ABOUT 'them', from "others" or "another's" perspective and interpretation?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:31 pmAnd when the stars are in the right places: so will you.

From my perspective, 'the stars' are ALWAYS in the EXACT Right place.

WHEN do you ENVISION 'the stars' WILL BE 'in the right places'? And, WHERE are the, so-called, 'right places', EXACTLY, anyway?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am From "immanuel can's" perspective, it it like 'you' are 'trying to' TRICK "immanuel can" into AGREEING with some 'thing', which "immanuel can" does NOT, and nor WILL NOT.

Perhaps, from IC's perspective, it is, but I'm not. I'm trying to point out a contradiction in his fundamental beliefs (which he derives from his interpretation of the Bible). I genuinely believe that it is a contradiction, and I genuinely want for him to recognise it as such, so I'm not sure how "trickery" is involved.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am [Quoting the first two - Christian - premises from my argument --Harry]
1. God is fundamentally (essentially) loving and just [Christian premise].
2. God condemns to eternal (infinite), unimaginable torment any person who, in living his/her finite life, has sinned and refused to accept Jesus Christ as his/her saviour [Christian premise].

As for 1. I can SEE that "immanuel can" may well agree with THIS interpretation

He quite obviously does, so I'm glad you see as much.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am Although the first premise may be AGREED UPON by "immanuel can", the second premise may well NOT. We will have to WAIT, and SEE.

I doubt that our waiting will end. He is determined to ignore the challenge. As with the first premise, though, it's pretty obvious that he does agree with this one. Why else would he be threatening those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour by the time of their death with an afterlife consequence "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am I, however, do NOT agree with NOR accept your second premise AT ALL. Also, from how I read the bible, there is absolutely NOTHING written in there that SAYS ANY thing like you have interpreted and portrayed here. But, maybe you can link us somewhere or to some thing, which SHOWS otherwise?

OK.

“And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’” --Mark 9:47-48

According to Jesus's word in those verses, in hell, undying (that is, eternal) worms consume the damned, and the fire is not quenched; that is, it burns the damned eternally.

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

[...]

Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. --Revelation 20:10 followed by Revelation 20:15

The devil, beast, and false prophet, it says, will be tormented for ever and ever in the lake of fire. This lake of fire, then, is eternal. Any human being without an entry in the book of life will, too, be thrown into this eternal lake of fire. There is no indication here that their stay in this eternal realm of torment is any less eternal than that of the devil, beast, and false prophet.

There are other similar verses which I don't have the patience to dig up right now. Those are, I think, though, enough.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am If you REALLY want to KNOW WHY, from my perspective and interpretation, there is absolutely NOTHING in the bible about God condemning a person to unimaginable torment for eternity, and that this is just your OWN interpretation, ONLY, then I am sure 'you' will ASK 'me' the right question/s.

The right question, I believe, is "How do you reconcile your perspective and interpretation with the verses I shared immediately above?"

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pm No one has spoken, on any level, of an alternative or perhaps a more original, a truer, a more believable metaphysics that would amend or replace the distorted Judeo-Christian social and political mythology.

There are many different ideas and beliefs.

And, ALL 'beliefs' are completely and utterly UNNECESSARY, 'have to be' HAD, and 'have to be' HELD.

Whereas, ALL 'ideas' are JUST, (and) Natural, and just come and go and thus flow NATURALLY.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Wrong with 'ideas', but there can be VERY MANY things Wrong with 'beliefs'.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm Why not ask: Why does one need what they need, and why does one replace anything with anything?

Have you answered this question "yourself"?

If yes, then what was YOUR answer?

And, WHY ASSUME and/or BELIEVE the question; 'Why does one need what they need, and/or why does one replace anything with anything?' was not ALREADY asked, AND has ALREADY been answered?

Now, WHY one 'needs' what they 'need' is BECAUSE they would NOT survive if they did NOT get 'what they need'.

See, unlike most of 'you', adult human beings, who CONFUSE 'needs' with 'wants', what is ACTUALLY NEEDED in Life, MEANS that WITHOUT 'it' one could NOT live ANYMORE. And, the 'needs' of ALL human beings is the EXACT SAME, and are VERY FEW I will now add. There are ONLY about four things in Life human beings NEED. The rest are ALL just WANTS.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm It doesn't really matter what one chooses. Each person believes what serves them.

CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, NOT EVERY one BELIEVES 'things'.

And, considering the Fact that there are ONLY about four NEEDS in Life, whatever else, which supposedly serves 'you', are ACTUALLY COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm We're on this philosophy forum, however, to question and explore and challenge everything. We are not in anyone's church -- nothing should be off-limits.

There is value and interest, for some, in choosing to be without attachment to certain templates/structures/ideas. Some people aren't inclined to be told what is and should be. Some people are more inclined to assess each moment and situation independently of certain concepts and people. Clearly there are many different ways of seeing and functioning.

YET, to some, their BELIEF, and CHURCH, IS, There is NOT One Truth, and EVERY one SHOULD FOLLOW and BELIEVE 'this' ALSO.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pmAs well, no one even seems interested in discussing and analyzing contemporary events in the light of the break-down in the possibility of metaphysical agreements.

Because we'd have to agree with all sorts of things that we may not agree on.

LOL I thought 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, would have had ALREADY EVOLVED PAST this VERY OLD WAY of thinking and seeing 'things'.

'Discussing and analyzing' 'things' NEVER means one HAS TO agree with absolutely ANY thing, AT ALL. The WHOLE point of 'discussing and analyzing' 'things' is to REMAIN Truly OPEN so as to LEARN MORE, and/or ANEW.

ABSOLUTELY NO one is UNDER ANY ACTUAL PRESSURE to AGREE WITH nor ON ABSOLUTELY ANY thing here. Can we PLEASE MOVE ON past this VERY, VERY OLD WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

And, while we are on AGREEING WITH 'things', what WILL BE DISCOVERED IS that what 'it' IS, which EVERY one AGREES WITH, and ACCEPTS, is what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY. And, 'this', itself, is just ANOTHER IRREFUTABLE Fact, which absolutely NO one could REFUTE, nor DISAGREE WITH logically. Although, as will, ONCE AGAIN, be SHOWN, some WILL 'try to'.

I suggest, to just keep things Truly SIMPLE and EASY here, that absolutely EVERY one ONLY AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS what they do, and does NOT agree with NOR accept absolutely ANY thing that you do NOT.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm There are so many ways to look at it! Is it breakdown or transformation? Is it a loss or, ultimately, a gain? How big of a picture do you want to look at and agree on?

I suggest ONLY LOOKING AT thee True, Right, and Correct, Big and FULL Picture ONLY. That way ONLY what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True can be SEEN, and thus ALSO KNOWN.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pmDo we conceive of a non-metaphysical world? Is that the meaning of the deconstruction of the Christian Story? Is all of Christianity a false-metaphysics?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm

The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of man. -- Richard Weaver

How can we know and agree what that might be?

'you', human beings, have NOT ACTUAL CHOICE in the matter. 'you' ARE evolving, and WILL, and ACTUAL DO, evolve OUT OF and PAST the OLD human being way of thinking, looking, and seeing, and evolve UP and INTO a MUCH MORE INSIGHTFUL WAY of LOOKING and SEEING 'things', from A PLACE WHERE KNOWING EXISTS, and which REPLACES just plain old 'thinking'.

See, WHERE 'you', adult human beings, are 'now', when this is being written, is IN A PLACE, and PERIOD, WHERE 'you' STILL have and use APE (-like) thinking, that is; 'you' USE Assumptions, based on Past Experiences to LOOK AT and MAKE SENSE 'of the world'. Which is WHAT is just PREVENTING 'you' from MOVING FORWARD, and IS HOLDING 'you' BACK, as well.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm If there is a truth and realization beyond man, it's BEYOND MAN.

It CAN, and DOES, become KNOWN, by 'you', human beings, while IN the human being part OF EVOLUTION, but it is this Truth and REALIZATION, "themselves", which PROPELS 'you' OUT OF, BEYOND, ABOVE, and/or PAST the so-called "man", or more correctly called 'human being', STAGE and LEVEL, of Life.

Thee Truth, which I continually inform, is KNOWN, IRREFUTABLY, when and WITH the REALIZATION that what 'it' IS, which absolutely EVERY one CAN AGREE WITH and ACCEPT, IS ACTUALLY thee IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'. There is ONLY One Truth, and 'this' IS 'It'.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm Our stories are stories.

VERY True. But SHARED, or COMMON stories, is WHERE thee ACTUAL Truth LIES.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm Why can't we accept and live with that?

LOL WHY can 'you' NOT ACCEPT that there is NO one who DISAGREES with 'it'?

WHY are 'you' ALWAYS LOOKING TO ONLY SEE your OWN IMAGINED and MADE UP STORY?

EVERY one KNOWS and ACCEPTS that 'our' stories are 'stories', AND EVERY one ACCEPTS this Fact and lives WITH 'IT'. Unless, OF COURSE, 'you' want to introduce 'us' to some one who DOES NOT ACCEPT 'this' and/or who can NOT live with 'this' (Fact)?

'you' appear to NOT be ABLE to JUST ACCEPT that there is One Truth, and that 'this Truth', EXISTS WITHIN the COMMON to ALL knowledge, which was OBTAINED along the way, through COMMONLY SHARED EXPERIENCES, and which WHEN the EXACT SAME is, literally, 'common knowledge', which we have ALL 'experienced' and SHARE IN. It is thee One Story, which comes from AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE BY, and WITH, ALL which is the ONLY Story, which HAS and HOLDS thee One and ONLY Truth.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm Isn't there enough within every moment and within this beautiful world to be fulfilled by?

YES, THERE IS.

But, by their VERY Nature, human beings WANT to LEARN and DISCOVER MORE, and MORE. And, EXACTLY like 'you' keep going on about, THERE IS MORE than just the stories 'you', individually believe and/or tell "yourselves".

And, REMEMBER 'you' are NOT YET Truly FULFILLED, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, by YOUR continual RETURN here to 'try to' "justify" to, and ENFORCE, your OWN BELIEFS upon "others".

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm Why do we need to concoct some 'other' that we'll be rewarded with or fulfilled by eventually?

Well considering the Fact that 'you' just here CLAIMED that 'you' do THIS, how about 'you' INFORM 'us' WHY do 'you', supposedly, NEED to do such A THING?

Have 'you' EVER considered that there COULD BE MORE to 'this world', than just 'meets the eyes', as some would say?

If there is NO MORE, which goes AGAINST what you SAY and CLAIM, then there COULD BE MORE, of a so-called REWARD and/or FULFILLMENT.

WHEN, and IF, 'you' do LEARN and UNDERSTAND thee ACTUAL Truth HERE, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE, instantly, HOW, in evolutionary terms, there WAS EVENTUALLY going to be A REWARD and FULFILLMENT ABOVE and BEYOND one's WILDEST DREAMS, within 'the world' that they have experienced.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm That seems irresponsible to me. Do it NOW. We have a tremendous gift right now.

YET 'you', "lacewing", are the ONE who IS NOT doing it, NOW.

'you' keep coming HERE to TELL us that there IS MORE to what we think and BELIEVE, but 'you' can NOT YET SEE past your VERY OWN thoughts and BELIEFS.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pm
Always!

SO, to "lacewing", there IS ALWAYS MORE. BUT, do NOT go LOOKING FOR 'It', do NOT wonder ABOUT 'It', and just DANCE and PLAY WITH 'me' 'here-now'.

'you' want to keep CLAIMING that 'there IS MORE', but it is like 'you' do NOT want ANY one to UNCOVER 'It' NOR FIND 'It'. 'you' keep TELLING 'us' YOUR BELIEF that, "There is NO One Truth", AND 'you' WANT 'us' to AGREE WITH and ACCEPT 'this truth' and BELIEF of YOURS.

ONCE AGAIN, the HYPOCRISY and CONTRADICTIONS from 'you', "lacewing", are Truly AMAZING. WHY they are SO AMAZING is because even AFTER this length of 'time' 'you' STILL can NOT YET SEE 'them'.

Alexis Jacobi to Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm I am so glad we are talking again!

You're not the only one. It was just awful to witness your crushing despair. All I could hope for was that Lacewing would relent; that you might be granted some reprieve, no matter how slight.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:12 pm A question about any kind of ‘ultimate truth’...

How is one served by thinking they know such a thing?

LOL

1. If 'you' REMOVED YOUR BELIEF that the way one thinks, about 'things', ALWAYS 'has to' be related to 'that thought' SERVING them in some way, then 'you' WILL BE at least A STEP CLOSER to being ABLE TO SEE CLEARLY, HERE, and thus MOVE FORWARD. Until then 'you' WILL REMAIN STUCK, EXACTLY WHERE 'you' are here-now, and WHERE 'you' HAVE BEEN for quite a while now.

2. By just 'thinking' one knows the Ultimate Truth does NOT 'serve' ANY one in ANY way.

3. CONTRARY to what 'you' ULTIMATELY BELIEVE IS TRUE, thee Ultimate Truth CAN be KNOWN. And, when one ARRIVES HERE, they do NOT 'think' they know thee Ultimate Truth, but rather, the KNOW they HAVE thee Ultimate Truth. This IS BECAUSE they KNOW that they HAVE and HOLD a Fact, which can NOT be REFUTE by ABSOLUTELY ANY one.

4. HOW this serves that one is by just KNOWING that they HAVE thee Truth, which, ULTIMATELY, can NOT be TAKEN FROM 'them'.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 7:50 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pm

The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of man.

-- Richard Weaver

C'mon you shards & fragments, you sons & daughters of civilization's salvific Moloch!

Surely there must be more?

Whether if can be ever found, which it never was, or whether there even is such a thing which qualifies as "ultimate" which likewise remains dubious, any attempt to find it consists of nothing more than metaphysical residue having no bearing on the destiny of man.

The REASON WHY 'you', human beings, had NOT YET FOUND is MOSTLY BECAUSE of the WAY 'you' go about LOOKING, or SEARCHING, for 'It'.

ABSOLUTELY ANY PRESUMPTION or ASSUMPTION of what 'It' is, WILL only lead 'you' FURTHER ASTRAY.

Ultimate Truth is REVEALED to 'you', ONLY AFTER a particular way of behaving has BEEN DONE. (Well this is the ONLY way i know of.)

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 7:50 pm An ultimate truth, if there be such, is more likely to reveal itself when not actively sought for.

VERY GOOD IN-SIGHT, and conclusion.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 7:50 pmFirst and foremost, it's the moment which determines the future. Maybe that should be our qualifying ultimate truth...good for as long as we haven't found another, that being extremely improbable.

It's the in-your-face truths staring at us now and how we contend with them that will be decisive for the destiny of man. If there were an ultimate truth most likely it will be conditioned by science in which case, there isn't much we can do about it except adapt.

Weaver's quote, in effect, resembles a medieval quasi-religious BS implicit with some teleological destiny hinging on its discovery. To repeat, that's bullshit! Not least, since when do mortals require some teleological imperative to keep going? For the longest period in our history it wasn't required or acknowledged as necessity. Why, spontaneously assume such a discovery would even make a difference! There seems to be hardly any ‘physics’ left in ‘metaphysics’, that is, a modicum of reality limiting its urges to go haywire.

Truth was never a corporation offering profits and dividends beyond its book value.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pmThere are many different ideas and beliefs. Why not ask: Why does one need what they need, and why does one replace anything with anything. It doesn't really matter what one chooses. Each person believes what serves them.

I wonder, my belovèd [I am so glad we are talking again!] if you realize how the idea you present here is thoroughly post-modern?

Consider the ideas of Richard Weaver from this article:

Relatedly, Weaver also attacked relativism, which applies the nominalist attitude toward classifying objects to moral values. Of course, William of Occam was not himself a moral relativist. That Occam did not believe in universal truth is certainly not Weaver’s claim, as it would be incorrect to attribute moral relativism to this medieval friar. And it would be intellectually irresponsible to simply confuse nominalism and relativism as the same thing. More responsibly, Weaver argued that what follows from nominalism is a rejection of absolute truth. In other words, Weaver identified a connection between the two ideas, suggesting that nominalism led the Western world to relativism. By denying that there are universal essences and absolutes, nominalism led to the current attitude that all values are relative. Years later, Weaver defined relativism as follows:

Relativism generally defined denies outright that there are any absolute truths, any fixed principles, or any standards beyond what one may consider his convenience. A thing is true only relative to the point of view of the individual, or to the time in which it is asserted, or to the circumstances that prevail in the moment. Truth is forever contingent and evolving, which means, of course, that you really never can lay hands on it. Relativism as a theory is actually an abdication of truth.

The article continues:

Relativism asserts that there is no absolute truth and that there is no metaphysical reality beyond the individual. Universal truths do not exist, and value judgments do not have universal validity. Writing in the 1940s, Weaver therefore put his thumb on the very essence of what would eventually be labeled post-modernism, the movement that took shape in the mid-to-late twentieth century that was skeptical of universal truth, morality, and grand narratives. Knowledge claims are, according to this view, constructed rather than discovered. Something might be true for one individual, but it may not be true for another individual—hence making knowledge claims nothing more than another point of view.

LaceWing further says:

We're on this philosophy forum, however, to question and explore and challenge everything. We are not in anyone's church -- nothing should be off-limits.

Well, I'd put it a bit differently but it would seem rather biting: We are indeed on a philosophy forum, and there are some who actually have philosophical training and philosophical habits of mind, but it is more accurate to say that it is a philosophy forum overrun by those who cannot, and will not, or who are not equipped to 'think philosophically'.

Considering this is a 'philosophy' forum, would you like to share 'your' thoughts on what what 'think philosophically' actually means, refers to, or entails, to you, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm The interesting thing to examine when your phrase We are not in anyone's church is examined closely is something that must be pointed out. If we really do understand the reality we are in; if we really do grasp what are the essential and fundamental requisites of this life in this plane of existence -- and all religions and all cultural philosophies are attempts to make statements about just that -- then what you recognize here as a religious perspective (the way that we relate to reality, in this reality, to one another, etc.) would necessarily be clarified and recognized.

But what in fact goes on, and certainly in you, is the carrying-out of successful campaigns of opposition against people like Immanuel Can (religious fanatics) using reasoning tools and a certain emotionalism (indignation). But then everything beyond that point flounders. You can describe all the good (emotion-based) reasons for breaking apart systems you are in reaction to, but you have no means to construct alternatives. Yet, and here is the weird part, your relativism has a fundamentalist twang to it. You very definitely are dealing in positive assertions. Your philosophy is active, determining.

And many people like you have positions in society where their ideas are also imposed.

Your perspective is interesting and considerable because, without thinking your way to the point you operate from, you define a nearly chemically-pure post-modern and relativistic perspective -- yet without seeing the full consequences of such a state. And in a real sense, but one that you have difficulty seeing & recognizing, you are defining a church policy: a fixed and absolutist assertion about the way things are (i.e. absent universal truths).

GOOD OBSERVATION, and conclusion.


"lacewing" REALLY can NOT YET SEE that they are DOING EXACTLY what they ACCUSE "others" of DOING.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm The position is comfortable to you because, as you have revealed, you grew up in a Church dominated by the likes of *Immanuel Cans*.

The FIXED and ABSOLUTIST POSITION, which "lacewing" has CHOSEN to BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY True "lacewing" thinks or BELIEVES SERVES them well.

However, the 'comfort' felt from their BELIEF is REALLY do "lacewing" MORE HARM and DAMAGE that ANY REAL 'good' AT ALL

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm It was imperative, for your own survival and growth, to get away from him and to get out from under the control of men who enacted their control against you. And rightly so. Necessarily.

Could there NOT be 'female' CONTROLLERS?

WHY did you mention 'men' ONLY here, with the 'control' word?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm You are just one among numerous: some on this thread have spoken of their religious upbringing and their need to negate it and get beyond it.

This entire episode with Brother Immanuel has been about exposing a man who is deeply invested in political and social theological forms that are, largely, social control institutions.

There is value and interest, for some, in choosing to be without attachment to certain templates/structures/ideas. Some people aren't inclined to be told what is and should be. Some people are more inclined to assess each moment and situation independently of certain concepts and people. Clearly there are many different ways of seeing and functioning.

This is, in essence, a 'girlish' intellectual position.

REALLY?

Are 'you' REALLY going to CHOSE and USE words like this here?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm I know that this will offend you as it would today to refer to an idea-set as uniquely feminine or female, but there you have it.

So, 'you' go OUT OF YOUR WAY to SAY and WRITE some 'thing', which 'you', supposedly, KNOW WILL 'offend' "another", and ANY ATTEMPT to back up and support YOUR KNOWN OFFENSIVE WORDING is to just SAY, "but there you have it". AGAIN, REALLY.

I suggest you now STAND BEHIND YOUR CLAIM and BACK UP and SUPPORT THIS CLAIM by INFORMING 'us' 'what', EXACTLY, does a " 'girlish' intellectual position' EVEN MEAN, or REFER TO, EXACTLY?

There is ABSOLUTE NO USE in just SAYING, 'it' refers to "an idea-set as uniquely feminine or female", as all you have REALLY DONE is just MOVE 'the goal posts', as some might say, to which I WOULD QUESTION, 'what', EXACTLY, does an "uniquely feminine or female idea-set' REFER TO, EXACTLY?

You MADE THE CLAIM here. SO, how about you now make a list of ALL or SOME of the 'idea-sets', which are, supposedly and allegedly, 'uniquely feminine or female', and a list of ALL or SOME of the 'idea-sets', which are, supposedly and allegedly, 'uniquely masculine or male'.

And then AFTER you do this, then you could EXPLAIN to 'us' HOW do 'you' DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN 'female' AND 'male' so-called 'idea-sets'?

And, exclaiming that you just use the NAME, which the writings are under will NOT suffice.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm Yes, it is true that it is possible to choose no template or structure in the realm of ideas.

Well it is NOT 'just possible', it is EXACTLY what EVERY human being ACTUAL DOES, for a while, at least, after birth.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm It is possible to do away, therefore, with all thinking or all reasoning as well. It is possible that we all make choices on the basis of what *feels good to us* or what *seems right in a given moment without reflection*. Yes! I grasp what you are saying!

But that sort of world is a world where idea-structures, for different reasons, are falling apart. That is, that people are falling away from idea-structure, and what you refer to as 'templates', and down into irrationally-based definitions, or non-definitions, based on non-thought (i.e. ideas that are not amenable to rationalization).

Alexis Jacobi to Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm And in a real sense, but one that you have difficulty seeing & recognizing, you are defining a church policy, a fixed and absolutist assertion about the way things are (i.e. absent universal truths).

The policy of The Church of No One Truth (NOT): "Thou shalt have no One Truth before thee but the One Truth that there is no One Truth." Right?!

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am From "immanuel can's" perspective, it it like 'you' are 'trying to' TRICK "immanuel can" into AGREEING with some 'thing', which "immanuel can" does NOT, and nor WILL NOT.

Perhaps, from IC's perspective, it is, but I'm not.

I KNOW you are NOT, doing this purposely nor consciously.

But neither does "immanuel can" KNOW that 'it' is 'trying to' TRICK, or FOOL, "others" either. And you BOTH are NOT necessarily 'trying to' TRICK nor FOOL each other, consciously and purposely ANYWHERE NEAR as some people do.

You are BOTH just EXPRESSING your OWN BELIEFS of what you BOTH BELIEVE is true.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:06 am I'm trying to point out a contradiction in his fundamental beliefs (which he derives from his interpretation of the Bible).

I KNOW, I can SEE this VERY CLEARLY.

But trying to POINT OUT 'contradictions' while a person is having or holding A BELIEF is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Or, better worded, I have NOT YET FOUND A WAY.

SEE, I would have as the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of trouble/issue trying to POINT OUT the 'contradiction' in your fundamental beliefs as I WOULD HAVE in POINTING OUT the EXACT SAME 'contradictions', to "immanuel can", which you are trying to POINT OUT to "immanuel can".

'you' and 'I' can CLEARLY SEE the 'contradictions' in "immanuel can's" fundamental beliefs. And, they are SO BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS we wonder HOW and WHY "immanuel can" can NOT ALSO SEE them. But this is the VERY NATURE of BELIEFS, themselves. They, literally, BLIND and DEAFENING one to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, literally, STOPS and PREVENTS that person from LEARNING and SEEING absolutely ANY thing that opposes THAT ASSUMPTION or BELIEF.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:06 am I genuinely believe that it is a contradiction, and I genuinely want for him to recognise it as such, so I'm not sure how "trickery" is involved.

I, genuinely, KNOW 'it' IS a 'contradiction'. And,

I ALSO, genuinely, want for "immanuel can" to RECOGNIZE the 'contradiction', "them" 'self'.

The 'trickery' part is that EXACTLY HOW "immanuel can" IS 'tricking" 'itself', by BLINDING "immanuel can" to THE 'contradiction', so to 'you' have been TRICKED into NOT SEEING your very OWN 'contradiction/s', and it is this BLINDNESS, and/or DEAFNESS, which ALTHOUGH is NOT YET RECOGNIZED, it helps in 'TRICKING' "others" INTO having the SAME BELIEFS as the original TRICKED one HAD.

This is HOW and WHY the EXACT SAME 'contradiction', which you are referring to here, has been passed down for MILLENNIA now.

The one with the BELIEF, which is ACTUALLY 'a contradiction', is TRICKED into BELIEVING that 'it' is NOT a 'contradiction' AT ALL, and is in fact thee ACTUAL 'truth'. So, when they are expressing 'the contradiction', they are expressing 'it' as though it is REALLY 'a truth', and 'a truth', which "others" SHOULD also follow and/or BELIEVE is true, AS WELL.

My biggest goal here, in this forum, is to LEARN HOW to get people to just OPEN UP, REMAIN OPEN, and SEE 'things' for HOW they REALLY ARE. So, then I could just communicate better, with them, my view about HOW they can FIND and SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', for and by "their OWN 'selves'.

So, I KNOW the feeling of, genuinely, WANTING "others" to RECOGNIZE and SEE 'things', "themselves".

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am [Quoting the first two - Christian - premises from my argument --Harry]
1. God is fundamentally (essentially) loving and just [Christian premise].
2. God condemns to eternal (infinite), unimaginable torment any person who, in living his/her finite life, has sinned and refused to accept Jesus Christ as his/her saviour [Christian premise].

As for 1. I can SEE that "immanuel can" may well agree with THIS interpretation

He quite obviously does, so I'm glad you see as much.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am Although the first premise may be AGREED UPON by "immanuel can", the second premise may well NOT. We will have to WAIT, and SEE.

I doubt that our waiting will end. He is determined to ignore the challenge.

I think "immanuel can" is just MORE AFRAID or SCARED to ACCEPT the challenge, then "immanuel can" is DETERMINED to just IGNORE IT.

I think "immanuel can" just feels THREATENED by 'your' version, or twist, on the 'eternal damnation' 'thing', and has just NOT YET COME to working out HOW to get AROUND this YET.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:06 am As with the first premise, though, it's pretty obvious that he does agree with this one. Why else would he be threatening those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour by the time of their death with an afterlife consequence "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

"immanuel can" may well threaten "others" with this 'interpretation', but from what I have observed and read there is NO mention AT ALL of 'this' scenario whatsoever.

But, AGAIN, I am OPEN to 'it' EXISTING in the bible, somewhere. I just have NOT been made privy to 'it', YET.

Now, OF COURSE, I have HEARD 'this story' countless times ALREADY. But I do NOT necessarily just BELIEVE what I hear, NOR read either, by the way.

And, considering the Fact that that INTERPRETATION is just BOTH, LOGICALLY AND PHYSICALLY an IMPOSSIBILITY. I wonder WHY ANY one would even REPEAT 'it' to "others", let alone PERSIST with 'it', AT ALL.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am I, however, do NOT agree with NOR accept your second premise AT ALL. Also, from how I read the bible, there is absolutely NOTHING written in there that SAYS ANY thing like you have interpreted and portrayed here. But, maybe you can link us somewhere or to some thing, which SHOWS otherwise?

OK.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:06 am “And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’” --Mark 9:47-48

According to Jesus's word in those verses, in hell, undying (that is, eternal) worms consume the damned, and the fire is not quenched; that is, it burns the damned eternally.

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

[...]

Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. --Revelation 20:10 followed by Revelation 20:15

The devil, beast, and false prophet, it says, will be tormented for ever and ever in the lake of fire. This lake of fire, then, is eternal. Any human being without an entry in the book of life will, too, be thrown into this eternal lake of fire. There is no indication here that their stay in this eternal realm of torment is any less eternal than that of the devil, beast, and false prophet.

There are other similar verses which I don't have the patience to dig up right now. Those are, I think, though, enough.

I can NOW SEE MORE CLEARLY WHY some people's MISINTERPRETATIONS led 'them' to their Wrong and Incorrect MISUNDERSTANDINGS here.

There is STILL nothing in there, to me anyway, that pertains to a person being ABLE to EXIST, or be ALIVE, FOREVER AND be TORTURED in ANY way.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 7:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:14 am If you REALLY want to KNOW WHY, from my perspective and interpretation, there is absolutely NOTHING in the bible about God condemning a person to unimaginable torment for eternity, and that this is just your OWN interpretation, ONLY, then I am sure 'you' will ASK 'me' the right question/s.

The right question, I believe, is "How do you reconcile your perspective and interpretation with the verses I shared immediately above?"

BECAUSE 'I' KNOW who and what the words 'human being', 'person', 'you', and 'I' refer to, EXACTLY. And, it is NOT even a POSSIBILITY that ANY of the above to HAPPEN to ANY of 'these things'.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:42 am But trying to POINT OUT 'contradictions' while a person is having or holding A BELIEF is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

The way I see it, in the heat of the moment, in a fierce fight, a contradiction will very often be vigorously denied, but, when the dust settles, the contradiction very often niggles in the back of the mind, and can lead to a gradual acceptance. People do change their beliefs based on arguments, even if that change comes slowly, because it has to be processed and many of one's other related beliefs reconsidered and potentially revised during that processing.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:42 am SEE, I would have as the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of trouble/issue trying to POINT OUT the 'contradiction' in your fundamental beliefs as I WOULD HAVE in POINTING OUT the EXACT SAME 'contradictions', to "immanuel can", which you are trying to POINT OUT to "immanuel can".

Well, please undertake that trouble/issue, because if you're going to accuse me of a contradiction in my fundamental beliefs, then I want to know specifically what you think it is.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:42 am [T]he VERY NATURE of BELIEFS, themselves [is that t]hey, literally, BLIND and DEAFENING one to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Sure, often enough, that's true, but, in general, beliefs are just a type of epistemic conviction on a scale from "speculation" to "incontrovertible knowledge", and there's nothing special about them in the way of blinding or deafening as opposed to any other type of epistemic conviction. Epistemic convictions of some type are, in any case, essential for decision-making, even if they are only provisional, so it is impossible in practice to live without something along the lines of belief.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:42 am My biggest goal here, in this forum, is to LEARN HOW to get people to just OPEN UP, REMAIN OPEN, and SEE 'things' for HOW they REALLY ARE.

Is the belief on which you base that that you do see things for how they really are? If so, doesn't that make you, too, subject to your own critique of belief (that you are also blinded and deafened by it)?

In any case, why don't you just, simply and directly, explain how you think things really are? Probably, some will get it, and some won't, but why pussyfoot around trying to get people to "open up"? Just say your piece and be prepared to defend it.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:42 am I think "immanuel can" is just MORE AFRAID or SCARED to ACCEPT the challenge, then "immanuel can" is DETERMINED to just IGNORE IT.

I think "immanuel can" just feels THREATENED by 'your' version, or twist, on the 'eternal damnation' 'thing', and has just NOT YET COME to working out HOW to get AROUND this YET.

I think that that's a fair and plausible suggestion, compatible with that which I wrote above about the slow acceptance of a niggle in the back of one's mind after vigorously denying its reality during a fierce fight.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:42 am There is STILL nothing in there, to me anyway, that pertains to a person being ABLE to EXIST, or be ALIVE, FOREVER AND be TORTURED in ANY way.

The quotes speak for themselves. Your belief that such a thing is impossible is not relevant to them. They clearly indicate that (according to the Bible) it does occur. Sure, their authors don't take the time to explain how it is possible, but I'm not sure why they should, because there is no prima facie reason to believe it is not possible. After all, if the saved can enjoy eternal bliss in heaven, then why couldn't the damned suffer eternal torment in hell?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:55 amNo, it isn't a matter of chucking away the Bible but rather becoming capable of reading the Bible and appreciating Jesus' mission. But thinking in this way is the unforgiveable question. Imagine telling a room full of educated people being told they know nothing in relation to Man's purpose for being here is dangerous.

My thoughts in relation to this are as follow:

It requires a certain person, with a certain frame of mind and a certain type of understanding to look at the Bible as a totality and extract out of it an existential platform, a way of living, a means of being in communication with *god*, and also a liturgy that a man or a group could live in accord with. There has to be an interpreting agent. But then the question becomes Who will undertake and fulfill this interpretive effort?

The spirituality or religiousness that you recommend and represent could only be received by a singular man, or perhaps by a small community of persons. You have allowed yourself to be influenced by philosophers who are actually outside of the Christian system and you can incorporate their perspectives as a sort of retrofitting. George Gurdjieff, Frithjof Schuon, and Simone Weil are examples of people who are engaged in projects of reinterpretation and even re-formatting. If you go that route then, in fact, the door can be opened to a complete revision and re-description of both Judaism and Christianity.

I do not have an argument against doing this necessarily but it would certainly result in just one more fracture (schism) within Christianity.

It can also be seen as an attempt to apply a band-aid to a metaphysical system that is actually falling to pieces. The reason it falls to pieces can be understood by examining this thread and this conversation. Though what you recommend as a spiritual process makes sense to me it could not be said that your interpretation would be accepted by those outside of a small circle.

However, the fact of the issue remains that the religion of Yahweh, taken as a whole, is entirely complicated and indeed polluted by controversy if only in the sense that a thousand people examining it extract out of it those elements that accord with their sensibilities while down-playing those elements that do not, and a thousand interpretations result.

There is simply no branch of Christianity today that is not beset with controversy and is not struggling to hold itself together against a general fragmentation.

The Bible was written for the distinct purpose of bypassing the literal mind and touching the inner man. That is why it annoys the secular mind limited to the literal mind.

What you say here seems a *romantic* interpretation. It is as if you are saying that with a certain interpretive key, which you have access to, all the contradictions can be resolved. And this must have to do with *bypassing the literal mind* and somehow touching or inspiring 'the inner man'.

But the Bible (certainly those books that comprise the Old Testament) were written for a range of social and political purposes, and the function of the tribal religion was, according the Yahweh, to annihilate opposition to the Hebrew tribal project. It is possible though to say that the advent of Jesus of Nazareth, and the spiritual and religious movements that came before him, represented a very different departure-point. But at that point, in fact, god is defined extremely differently. At that point god is really defined as a universal entity. Yet it is still an extension of Yahweh and it is still immersed in the original context with all its conflicts and contradictions.

Christianity has the purpose with the help of the Spirit of making a silk purse out of a sows ear. The sows ear represents man's life in Plato's cave. yet it has the potential to become a silk purse or consciously evolved humanity.

This is immensely interpretive! It is rather Alexandrian really (Neoplatonic essentially):

[Wiki}: Alexandrian school is also used to describe the religious and philosophical developments in Alexandria after the 1st century. The mix of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy led to a syncretic mix and much mystical speculation. The Neoplatonists devoted themselves to examining the nature of the soul, and sought communion with God. The two great schools of biblical interpretation in the early Christian church incorporated Neoplatonism and philosophical beliefs from Plato's teachings into Christianity, and interpreted much of the Bible allegorically. The founders of the Alexandrian school of Christian theology were Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Nick continues:

The basic reason everything remains as it is is because we don't believe we live in Plato's cave or the exoteric level of reality. Yet there are those who sense their position with the inner need TO BE.

You are proposing very personal perspectives that would result in very personal choices.

But European Christianity developed as a cultural and civilizational foundation.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pmThere are many different ideas and beliefs. Why not ask: Why does one need what they need, and why does one replace anything with anything. It doesn't really matter what one chooses. Each person believes what serves them.

I wonder, my belovèd [I am so glad we are talking again!] if you realize how the idea you present here is thoroughly post-modern?

Your misinterpretations and labels are of no interest to me. That's why there's not more for us to talk about -- because that's pretty much what you seem inclined to do.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pmWe are indeed on a philosophy forum, and there are some who actually have philosophical training and philosophical habits of mind, but it is more accurate to say that it is a philosophy forum overrun by those who cannot, and will not, or who are not equipped to 'think philosophically'.

Oh, how sad and trying for the 'experts'.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pmYou can describe all the good (emotion-based) reasons for breaking apart systems you are in reaction to, but you have no means to construct alternatives.

Constructing alternatives makes no sense. I'm asking 'how could there NOT surely be more than the rigid beliefs we humans lock ourselves into'?" It is a philosophical question. Sometimes a question can help someone look further. The fact that you hurry to replace one belief with another shows how difficult this question is for you. Apparently, you need a belief structure upon which to build your empire which you can preside over? That entertains you? Not everyone wants or needs that.

It is possible, even if you aren't aware of it, for life to work extraordinarily well when one doesn't obstruct the larger, natural, perfectly-connected flow with their dense/rigid human beliefs and ego and fear. I practice being a cooperative, balanced, and creative part of all. I have ongoing gratitude. Perfection falls into place. No particular story is required, nor even helpful. Why wouldn't I want to suggest that people ask how much more there might be than what they're fixated on?

Many thoughtful teachers express and ask this, as well.

It's not so serious or mysterious.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm This is, in essence, a 'girlish' intellectual position.

This says a lot about you.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pm Yes, it is true that it is possible to choose no template or structure in the realm of ideas. It is possible to do away, therefore, with all thinking or all reasoning as well. It is possible that we all make choices on the basis of what *feels good to us* or what *seems right in a given moment without reflection*. Yes! I grasp what you are saying!

Uh, no, I don't think you do. Your distorted and absurd interpretation is very small-minded. Probably because you need to protect/defend your addiction to your way of thinking and what you think you know.

Meanwhile, there are people who are expressing and demonstrating that they have very productive, successful, and fulfilling lives (physically and spiritually) without requiring or relying on views like yours or other conventional beliefs. What might THAT suggest? Are you capable of grasping that without distorting it into a cartoon image in your head?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:41 pmBut that sort of world is a world where idea-structures, for different reasons, are falling apart. That is, that people are falling away from idea-structure, and what you refer to as 'templates', and down into irrationally-based definitions, or non-definitions, based on non-thought (i.e. ideas that are not amenable to rationalization).

So, you think stepping away from traditional or conventional structures can only be interpreted in a certain way, based on your definitions and the way you think. I can't really work with that -- just as you apparently cannot work with what I say. So, there we are.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 5:19 pmIt's not so serious or mysterious.