Philosophy Now Forum

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:04 am

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm

It was an FYI

And, for your information, One Thing ALONE can NOT create absolutely ANY thing. So, what was "YOUR FYI" could NOT be ACCURATE, that is; in relation to what IS thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'. As I just POINTED OUT and REVEALED.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm what’s all this are you a feminist or something?

LOL I suggest you ask your questions from a Truly OPEN perspective from now on. That way you can RECEIVE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm language is in place to represent concepts of which the human race determines its use.

And My words and thus language SHOWS and REVEALS WHERE, EXACTLY, the words and thus language, which 'you', human beings, are determined to use, is False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 3:54 pm So, argue with all of the human race that uses male for the Creator and Judge. And male for Son of God.

LOL What is there to 'argue' about here, EXACTLY?

I am just QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING 'you', adult human beings, here over WHY 'you' call and label 'God' a 'male gendered thing'?

The reason you gave here is the best one I have SEEN so far. But it still does NOT work.

If, and WHEN, 'you', human beings, come to LEARN and UNDERSTAND who and what the word 'God' refers to, EXACTLY, then, and ONLY THEN, 'you' will ALSO SEE HOW and WHY the 'male gendered' terms WERE used, as well as UNDERSTAND HOW and WHY those terms WERE False, and so Wrong AND Incorrect.

for some reason i just don't feel informed here.

BECAUSE you do NOT want to ACCEPT that what you SAID and CLAIMED could be WRONG in ANY way.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:24 pm That's EXACTLY how I FEEL, DPM.

This is what BELIEF DOES.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pm Lacewing

So, you don't want to answer the question. This implies that you show favor to non-secularists despite how much of the 'majority' they actually represent. And you like to speak of a 'minority' as if the whole world are secularists who are against the minority. It's a skewed story that glorifies a few and doesn't reflect broader truth.

Man is dual natured. His lower part arise from the earth normal for all animal life. However parts of his higher nature descended from above and explains what the depth of human being is attracted to.

The trouble is that those governed primarily by its lower parts consider the idea as insulting and idiotic and begins to hate its influence.

You're still side-stepping the question that was put to you, which was based on the claim you made, and I did this to explore why your claims don't add up. Evidently, for you, your claims don't need to add up. You say what you want to believe, and then justify it by saying more stuff that you want to believe.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pmThis is biblical and a very deep concept

It's not deep.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pm The ideas I express, essential to Christianity, generate negativity and hatred.

This is the story you like to tell. The truth is that most people don't care about the ideas you express, they care that it doesn't add up and that you don't care that it doesn't add up.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pmYou refer to Christendom or man made Christianity and the hypocrisy of its results which are the same as other secular institutions. Some, rather than arguing, try to reason why it is so.

There is no arguing -- just questions. What is the reasoning for the hypocrisy?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:13 pm btw IC, I can't accept the 'foreknowledge and cause are not the same' proposition you presented earlier becuz i don't believe such a question is produced on account of there being no freewill with which to make a choice god had foreknowledge of but didn't cause, etc.

Well, well, prom. As you can see, I correctly forknew you would respond.

Is it your contention, therefore, that I also MADE you respond? You had no choice in the matter, you want to tell me? But if I didn't make you respond, how come I was able to say that I knew you would?

So no, they're not even the same in your own experience, let alone philosophically.

This...

Man is dual natured. His lower part arise from the earth normal for all animal life. However parts of his higher nature descended from above and explains what the depth of human being is attracted to.

The trouble is that those governed primarily by its lower parts consider the idea as insulting and idiotic and begins to hate its influence.

...reminded me of this...

“In the future, we will eliminate the soul with medicine. Under the pretext of a ‘healthy point of view’, there will be a vaccine by which the human body will be treated as soon as possible directly at birth, so that the human being cannot develop the thought of the existence of soul and Spirit.

To materialistic doctors, will be entrusted with the task of removing the soul of humanity. As today, people are vaccinated against this disease or disease, so in the future, children will be vaccinated with a substance that can be produced precisely in such a way that people, thanks to this vaccination, will be immune to being subjected to the “madness” of spiritual life. He would be extremely smart, but he would not develop a conscience, and that is the true goal of some materialistic circles.

With such a vaccine, you can easily make the etheric body loose in the physical body. Once the etheric body is detached, the relationship between the universe and the etheric body would become extremely unstable, and man would become an automaton, for the physical body of man must be polished on this Earth by spiritual will.

So, the vaccine becomes a kind of arymanique force; man can no longer get rid of a given materialistic feeling. He becomes materialistic of constitution and can no longer rise to the spiritual.” Rudolf Steiner

Psychotropics anyone?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:33 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pm Lacewing

So, you don't want to answer the question. This implies that you show favor to non-secularists despite how much of the 'majority' they actually represent. And you like to speak of a 'minority' as if the whole world are secularists who are against the minority. It's a skewed story that glorifies a few and doesn't reflect broader truth.

Man is dual natured. His lower part arise from the earth normal for all animal life. However parts of his higher nature descended from above and explains what the depth of human being is attracted to.

The trouble is that those governed primarily by its lower parts consider the idea as insulting and idiotic and begins to hate its influence.

You're still side-stepping the question that was put to you, which was based on the claim you made, and I did this to explore why your claims don't add up. Evidently, for you, your claims don't need to add up. You say what you want to believe, and then justify it by saying more stuff that you want to believe.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pmThis is biblical and a very deep concept

It's not deep.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pm The ideas I express, essential to Christianity, generate negativity and hatred.

This is the story you like to tell. The truth is that most people don't care about the ideas you express, they care that it doesn't add up and that you don't care that it doesn't add up.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pmYou refer to Christendom or man made Christianity and the hypocrisy of its results which are the same as other secular institutions. Some, rather than arguing, try to reason why it is so.

There is no arguing -- just questions. What is the reasoning for the hypocrisy?

You've lost me on this one. I have always maintained that humanity lives in the darkness of Plato's cave or the darkness of the world according to Christianity. That is why darkness is attached to the world and cannot experience its higher transcendent origin. Humanity denies what offers the light.

A person can be open to the idea intellectually or emotionally but it does require the ability for deductive reasoning which many don't want to do. I learn from those attached to arguing and why; and also those in the process of transcending it. Why the hatred described in the Bible? If I can better understand the process of awakening, it will help

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:40 pm This...

Man is dual natured. His lower part arise from the earth normal for all animal life. However parts of his higher nature descended from above and explains what the depth of human being is attracted to.

The trouble is that those governed primarily by its lower parts consider the idea as insulting and idiotic and begins to hate its influence.

...reminded me of this...

“In the future, we will eliminate the soul with medicine. Under the pretext of a ‘healthy point of view’, there will be a vaccine by which the human body will be treated as soon as possible directly at birth, so that the human being cannot develop the thought of the existence of soul and Spirit.

To materialistic doctors, will be entrusted with the task of removing the soul of humanity. As today, people are vaccinated against this disease or disease, so in the future, children will be vaccinated with a substance that can be produced precisely in such a way that people, thanks to this vaccination, will be immune to being subjected to the “madness” of spiritual life. He would be extremely smart, but he would not develop a conscience, and that is the true goal of some materialistic circles.

With such a vaccine, you can easily make the etheric body loose in the physical body. Once the etheric body is detached, the relationship between the universe and the etheric body would become extremely unstable, and man would become an automaton, for the physical body of man must be polished on this Earth by spiritual will.

So, the vaccine becomes a kind of arymanique force; man can no longer get rid of a given materialistic feeling. He becomes materialistic of constitution and can no longer rise to the spiritual.” Rudolf Steiner

Psychotropics anyone?

Steiner was no fool. He introduces another deep concept suggesting the denial of the development of the human soul. Jacob Needleman expresses the same idea in his explanation of acornology. Much food for thought.

Acornology

I began my lecture that morning from just this point. There is an innate element in human nature, I argued that can grow and develop only through impressions of truth received in the organism like a special nourishing energy. To this innate element I gave a name - perhaps not a very good name - the "higher unconscious." My aim was to draw an extremely sharp distinction between the unconscious that Freud had identified and the unconscious referred to (though not by that name) in the Christian tradition.

Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful!

The question before us, therefore, is whether or not modern psychology is only a version of acornology.

Steiner was no fool.

No, he wasn't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:12 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 am Dude, I'm using the word "just" in its ordinary sense.

There is no "ordinary sense" that everybody agrees with.

So, it really is too hard for you to consult an online dictionary or two. Here's what you could have found had you done so:

1. based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
2. (of treatment) deserved or appropriate in the circumstances.
--Oxford University Press (as provided up-top of an Ecosia search for define just):

2 a (1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : RIGHTEOUS
// a just war
(2) : being what is merited : DESERVED
// a just punishment
--Merriam-Webster

1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair1.
2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
3. Properly due or merited: just deserts.
--The Free Dictionary

fair; morally correct:
● The judge's sentence was perfectly just in the circumstances.
● I don't really think he had just cause to complain.
--Cambridge English Dictionary

Now, you go on to contend:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:12 pm

Here are some relevant quotes from the Bible, also using that word (or, rather, a variant of it: "justice"):

"For the LORD is a God of justice." --Excerpted from Isaiah 30:18

"For I, the LORD, love justice" --Excerpted from Isaiah 61:8

"The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love." --Psalms 33:5

[You can only] claim that God is "unjust" [...] if you are using a definition DIFFERENT from the one the Bible is using.

There are, then, two possibilities:

Firstly, that, in the Biblical quotes above, the Bible uses "just" in the ordinary sense as given by the dictionary definitions above. Thus, both premises #1 and #3 of the argument are true, and the argument as a whole succeeds, because, according to the dictionary definition and common understanding, it is manifestly unjust to punish a person with infinite torment for finite (potentially only minor) transgressions.

Secondly, that in those quotes, by "just", the Bible means something like "so far beyond unjust that even 'sadistic' doesn't begin to describe it", in which case, although the argument doesn't succeed (because premise #3 becomes false on this definition), the Bible is a work of doublespeak - trading off the positive connotations of a word yet meaning by it the complete opposite - and could not possibly be the true Word of God.

In the first case, Christianity is proved to be contradictory, and thus it cannot be true as a whole.

In the second, Christianity's key texts are so perversely deceptive as to invalidate a basic tenet of the religion: that the Bible is the true and reliable Word of God, and thus, again, Christianity cannot be true as a whole.

So, take your pick...

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 3:12 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:12 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 am Dude, I'm using the word "just" in its ordinary sense.

There is no "ordinary sense" that everybody agrees with.

So, it really is too hard for you to consult an online dictionary or two.

No, but it won't answer the question. Dictionaries can tell me what other people, specifically, the writers of dictionaries, think "justice" is; they can't tell me what you think it is. And they can't tell us how justice is manifest is a specific situation. They can only give us generalizations...and even their generalizations will not be identically-worded or exactly conceptually equivalent with each other, as your examples also show.

But there's an even bigger problem, and one you simply can't beat. Namely, that if God is not, as you claim, competent to establish what true justice is, then there is simply no reality to justice itself. If the universe is the product of time plus chance, or mere accidental material interactions of cause and effect, then what is there that gives you a claim to justice, or even warrant for believing that "justice" refers to a real thing?

There is nothing. Evolutionism can't tell you what "justice" is. Chaos theory can't. Quantum mechanics can't, nor can the Multiverse Hypothesis, nor the Big Bang Theory, nor Panspermia theories. There's simply no warrant for any of us to believe that a concept called "justice" even exists or refers to anything in the real world, far less that we have a "right" to it, or to the conception of "justice" we happen to prefer.

So there's no longer a grounds for complaint, if one remains an Atheist. You can't say, "God is unjust," not just because you don't believe in God, but also because you don't have any basis for believing in justice. So you've got no predication of God your claim can make.

There are, then, two possibilities:

...it is manifestly unjust to punish a person with infinite torment for finite (potentially only minor) transgressions.

The deciding of the proper value of a given "transgression," Harry, how it relates to the other "transgressions of that person," and the proper understanding of what it indicates about the character and nature of the perpetrator...who gets to decide that?

Are you confident you are competent to do so, or would the Creator of the universe be a better judge of what is involved in a full and accurate understanding of sinfulness?

In what court, Harry, is the "perp" asked what he thinks he deserves -- and then the court cannot adjudicate until the perpetrator of the crime agrees that his punishment is warranted by his own standards? Where does such a thing ever happen?

Do we imagine that if we insult God, reject relationship with Him, perpetrate evil without any contrition, and then die obdurate, that we have a right, then, to dictate our own ticket? Exactly where would we get such authority?

As I said above, we don't get it from Evolution, or from Quantum Mechanics, or the Multiverse Hypothesis...it's simply not available to us, unless there's a God who establishes the standard of justice as an objective fact. So the irony becomes that you can't accuse God without appealing to God. You have to "steal" His standard, illegitimately trying to present is as yours or as a human artifact, (either of which are all too easy to debunk, of course, as neither has any authority) and then insist that it should be used by you in order to judge God.

That's a paradox that I think you'll find there's no way to overcome.

That's all your response deserves.

By the way, I'm not an atheist.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:34 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:33 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pm Lacewing


Man is dual natured. His lower part arise from the earth normal for all animal life. However parts of his higher nature descended from above and explains what the depth of human being is attracted to.

The trouble is that those governed primarily by its lower parts consider the idea as insulting and idiotic and begins to hate its influence.

You're still side-stepping the question that was put to you, which was based on the claim you made, and I did this to explore why your claims don't add up. Evidently, for you, your claims don't need to add up. You say what you want to believe, and then justify it by saying more stuff that you want to believe.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pmThis is biblical and a very deep concept

It's not deep.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pm The ideas I express, essential to Christianity, generate negativity and hatred.

This is the story you like to tell. The truth is that most people don't care about the ideas you express, they care that it doesn't add up and that you don't care that it doesn't add up.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 6:34 pmYou refer to Christendom or man made Christianity and the hypocrisy of its results which are the same as other secular institutions. Some, rather than arguing, try to reason why it is so.

There is no arguing -- just questions. What is the reasoning for the hypocrisy?

You've lost me on this one. I have always maintained that humanity lives in the darkness of Plato's cave or the darkness of the world according to Christianity. That is why darkness is attached to the world and cannot experience its higher transcendent origin. Humanity denies what offers the light.

A person can be open to the idea intellectually or emotionally but it does require the ability for deductive reasoning which many don't want to do. I learn from those attached to arguing and why; and also those in the process of transcending it. Why the hatred described in the Bible?

What is, from your perspective, the supposed and alleged 'hatred', described in the bible?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:34 pm If I can better understand the process of awakening, it will help

If you REALLY do want to better understand the process of awakening, properly and fully, then you will show signs of this.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:31 am Humpty Dumpty on the meaning of words.jpg

That's all your response deserves.

By the way, I'm not an atheist.

But HumptyDumpty according to Alice's dream was a solitary being with no affiliations to Alice or anyone else.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 10:06 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:31 am Humpty Dumpty on the meaning of words.jpg

That's all your response deserves.

By the way, I'm not an atheist.

But HumptyDumpty according to Alice's dream was a solitary being with no affiliations to Alice or anyone else.

Well, whatever Humpty Dumpty's nature was is irrelevant to the point.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 10:10 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 10:06 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 5:31 am Humpty Dumpty on the meaning of words.jpg

That's all your response deserves.

By the way, I'm not an atheist.

But HumptyDumpty according to Alice's dream was a solitary being with no affiliations to Alice or anyone else.

Well, whatever Humpty Dumpty's nature was is irrelevant to the point.

But language and interpretation of language is social.

There is a bell curve where there is eccentric use of words , and Humpty Dumpty was extremely eccentric. Lewis Carrol was very good at English and knew just how eccentrically surrealist he could be while still being understood.