nihilism

[iambiguous]

The word 'actually' means that what you are about to say will contradict what I said, but what you wrote does not contradict it. It's another way to do the same thing.

Actually, I don't construe it that way at all.

Actually you're wrong about that.

https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... re%20right.

Actually, yes, you should. It emphasizes the fact that your respondent is wrong and you are right.... In principle, it should be used to contrast the theoretical with the real (the actual) and essentially a synonym for "instead".

If you reply to someone and start your reply with "actually", what follows is supposed to be a correction to something they said. If you don't construe yourself to be correcting something they said, you shouldn't use "actually". If you do, you're misusing English. You frequently misuse English.

Note to others:

Can you believe this! The "actually" crisis!!

[Immanuel Can]

If I respond to you here it is...to help them understand on what basis a Christian position of a Protestant variety, and how a Christian position of a Catholic variety, are constructed. That is, what are their essential tenets.

It would be much better if you got them right, then.

...you have said, innumerable times, that you either believe and *get with the program*, or you risk an eternity spent in the hell-realm.

Those are your words, not mine. But you mistake them for some kind of threat, which they are not. They are simply a description of what happens: those who hate God get an eternity without Him...which is exactly what they are requesting.

However, at no point have I implied or stated that fear of Hell is an incentive to belief. It should be obvious to you that it can be no incentive to somebody who doesn't believe in it, and unnecessary as any incentive for anybody who already does.

My grasp is that when one has, if I can put it like this, awakened intellect (understanding in a special sense), that one will naturally awaken a will to live in accord with what I have referred to with just one word as *rules*. Is a metaphysical imperative a rule? It is better to say that a metaphysical imperative, when realized, will result in a rule. When one has grasped the *intelligent reason* why a metaphysical imperative is necessary, only then could one choose to align one's will with it.

If reason were sufficient, then all reasonable men would be of the sort you describe. That they are not all like that is quite obvious, however. Reasonable persons often reason very differently: everything depends on the assumptive premises from which reason begins. At the beginning of reason, then, is faith. And the faith that an Atheist has that God does not exist is no less a faith commitment than the Theistic belief that God does...and is founded on an even poorer use of reason, since no sufficient reasons can be adduced for the proposition that an Atheist can know God does not exist.

All this, however, is separate from the essential question: will being a reasonable, or even well-behaved person get one to God? And the Biblical answer is quite clear on that: it will not. And many and strong passages can be produced to show this, though I imagine you'll probably sit still for none of them.

As you well know Catholicism posits a constant renewal of one's commitments.

And more. It claims that one must be a member of itself, and one must follow all the "sacraments," and also keep moral purity which must be renewed constantly through the confessional...in short, it's a religion of works, not of grace.

Put differently, that means that one can fall out of Grace.

Well, that's quite true: that's what the Catholics think. And that's why what they think isn't actually Christian. One has only to look at the very Bible they claim gives them their authority to see how far they've gone wrong on that.

[Belinda]

I trust IC also claims that God does not intervene to alter human choices but that trust in God's goodness can make us happier and more likely to try to follow the mores as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount.

In fact, the tenets of theology, the demands of a Christian-Catholic relationship to the Christian program, is far more demanding than most here realize. That theology, those ethics and morals, have been defined over centuries and for this reason a reference to The Sermon on the Mount is, frankly, an incomplete reference.

From what I have read over some years now — I might list a few titles — it is not hard for me to understand why many people, most people, would necessarily abandon a commitment to actually living in accord with those demands (and such they are). They are far too difficult.

To refer to “God’s goodness” does not really have much meaning. If we accept that a developed theological position is inspired by God as an entire set of imperatives, God may well be understood to be something other than merely “good” and in fact something rather terrible insofar as the demands are not easy, and the consequences of following one’s own will so fatal.

To the degree that people relax in their commitment to the most demanding principles, seems to be the degree to which they choose comfort and ease over rigorous commitment. It is a sort of either you do, or you don’t.

The result of accepting the demands has brought about the very best and the most exalted achievements of culture. And the relaxation away from the intensity of the demands seems to waste and diminish what had been attained.

I see it like this: The relaxation away from what I describe as demands is separation from the demands of metaphysical and supernatural principles. And when one turns away one can only return (in a sense fall down into) a type of sensuous relationship to the phenomena of life (mutable and perishing existence).

That is, in a sense, what “paganism” in our age refers to.

What really brings the “happiness” you refer to? It is a troublesome word really. Misleading.

Happiness is not happiness unless it's happiness of the soul that is thoroughly honest with itself. Happiness is not happiness that is induced by medication or escapism.

As for The Sermon on the Mount, I don't set out to write a book or long scholarly article on Christian morality so I don't accept your niggardly objection about the Sermon on the Mount 's being an "incomplete reference" .

[Alexis Jacobi]

…so I don't accept your niggardly objection about the Sermon on the Mount 's being an "incomplete reference".

Niggardly, from the Scandinavian nig meaning stingy.

What I mean is that to grasp Christianity one must grasp the Catholic 1,000+ years of Catholic religious culture where the theological base of Christian ethics was organized, put together, clarified.

Happiness is not happiness unless it's happiness of the soul that is thoroughly honest with itself.

That seems to me to be really true. And to mention the soul, our soul, surely implies a great deal, no? That would be a great, indeed a necessary, starting point for any genuine conversation on consequential religio-existential questions, wouldn’t it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Those are your words, not mine.

I have said that I am aware that conversation, debate and argument with you is futile. As you know I regard your “Protestant errors” as inflecting, distortingly, the fundamental and valuable essences within Christian Catholicism. If I can say that you taught me anything, it came about through seeing those “errors” in motion, operating. That is why I conclude: you are a terrible Christian apologist.

I really do believe though that you are right that the Catholic ethics necessarily involve a daily, even an hourly, renewal of spiritual commitment

[Belinda]

…so I don't accept your niggardly objection about the Sermon on the Mount 's being an "incomplete reference".

Niggardly, from the Scandinavian nig meaning stingy.

What I mean is that to grasp Christianity one must grasp the Catholic 1,000+ years of Catholic religious culture where the theological base of Christian ethics was organized, put together, clarified.

Happiness is not happiness unless it's happiness of the soul that is thoroughly honest with itself.

That seems to me to be really true. And to mention the soul, our soul, surely implies a great deal, no? That would be a great, indeed a necessary, starting point for any genuine conversation on consequential religio-existential questions, wouldn’t it?

Am I right in thinking that Catholic religious culture may properly be analysed into metaphysics, moral code, and rituals?

If so then Catholic Religious culture is sufficiently similar to other historical religious cultures in respect of moral code. The Sermon on the Mount is about love which is God.
It's unlikely, unless civilisation as we know it collapses, that love will cease to be the basis of all world religions.
My contention is that God is dying as an existential essence but we should reinstate Godlove as aspiration. And The Sermon on the Mount remains relevant as a beginners' guide.

The Sermon on the Mount addresses how to make one's own soul thrive.

[Iwannaplato]

Actually, I don't construe it that way at all.

Actually you're wrong about that.

https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... re%20right.

Actually, yes, you should. It emphasizes the fact that your respondent is wrong and you are right.... In principle, it should be used to contrast the theoretical with the real (the actual) and essentially a synonym for "instead".

If you reply to someone and start your reply with "actually", what follows is supposed to be a correction to something they said. If you don't construe yourself to be correcting something they said, you shouldn't use "actually". If you do, you're misusing English. You frequently misuse English.

Note to others:

Can you believe this! The "actually" crisis!!

I try to understand your posts. You respond to me with 'actually' and it's confusing. I remind you how 'actually' is used. Maybe you actually thought you were disagreeing, though I couldn't see how. You treated this like a crisis.

Here were some possible responses: Oh, you're right. No, what I wrote after that does contradict what you said: here's why......... Could you explain what you mean here? There are other options. But for reasons known only to yourself, you avoid the issue. You basically answer 'NO' with no explanation or questions to me.

I don't construe it that way. No new information, No request for more information. Nothing. It's not even clear what you don't construe a certain way and what that way is. Is it the word 'actually' ?is it that what we each said doesn't exclude the other? Something else?

This is one thing that people do in a philosophy forum: try to understand what the other person is saying. What you said didn't make sense to me and I took steps to try to get it. I explained why it didn't make sense to me.

Here you frame the situation as if we think the word 'actually' can lead to crises. But it seems like a crisis for you. If it's not a crisis for you, there are some pretty simple responses to help us understand each other.

[Fairy]

At the beginning of reason, then, is faith. And the faith that an Atheist has that God does not exist is no less a faith commitment than the Theistic belief that God does...and is founded on an even poorer use of reason, since no sufficient reasons can be adduced for the proposition that an Atheist can know God does not exist.

All this, however, is separate from the essential question: will being a reasonable, or even well-behaved person get one to God? And the Biblical answer is quite clear on that: it will not. And many and strong passages can be produced to show this, though I imagine you'll probably sit still for none of them.

Ahh, but that's just where you are wrong IC... there is a separate part of you that is completely still and totally motionless...take heed

The Bible teaches us to comfort ourselves in the Lord, aka ( Enlightenment) when difficulties and dangers are greatest. It is almighty wisdom that contrives, and almighty power that works the safety of those that put themselves under God's aka ( Enlightened ) protection. He, namely (The Enlightened ONE ), is a wakeful, watchful Keeper; he is never weary; he not only does not sleep, but he does not so much as slumber.

This wide awake, ever aware watcher is the (Absolute UNborn Enlightened Observer) his relative, is his conception...as a concept known ( the born one)

Do you sleep at night IC ?

The answer is yes and no, while you are not conscious of yourself as a concept known during sleep, you still exist as pure concept-less awareness and is easily stirred to awaken from slumber by the sounding of a loud noise, because that's what the watcher does, it protects..
If you were not both the awakened and the sleeper, you would not be able to be alerted to awaken from sleep to danger. So you have to be both the observer and the observed, in the same one body.

That's Non-duality.

If life wasn't recorded. Did life ever happen?

You cannot know what it going to happen until after it's happened. You have to sleep in order to be awakened.

If you could know what was going to happen before it happened, then you could stop things that you did not want to happen from happening.

[Immanuel Can]

Those are your words, not mine.

I have said that I am aware that conversation, debate and argument with you is futile.

What you really mean is that I know my position, and I don't give you ground on it. I have good reasons, and you don't like them. That does indeed make the debate become "futile," but only if your own position is intransigent and not open to data. Only you can decide whether that's the kind of position you wish to hold.

I really do believe though that you are right that the Catholic ethics necessarily involve a daily, even an hourly, renewal of spiritual commitment

Well, we agree on that, then. And we can at least start there.

Here's the problem, then. Just how successful is any Catholic in either achieving or maintaning his own salvation? We might add, how successful is the average Catholic in preserving himself from sin? If the answer were "Very successful," then what need would a Catholic person have any longer for confession, for absolution, for penances, for sacraments, for rosaries and appeals to saints, and ultimately, to the fiction of Purgatory? The Catholic person, having been successful in purifying his own soul, would surely need recourse to none of these any longer. But as you know, these are repeatedly and furiously practiced by every observant Catholic...thus indicating what we all know experientially whenever we try to make ourselves good; that we fail almost immediately.

That being so, what confidence about his relationship with God can any Catholic have? And what does it mean for a Catholic to think he has been "saved," when that salvation is literally in jeopardy "daiily," or "hourly," and with his own next wicked thought?

[Immanuel Can]

That's Non-duality.

Having already showed you that Non-dualism is incoherent and self-refuting, I cannot help but marvel at your addiction to a belief system that cannot even possibly be true -- even if we believe everything it entails as premises.

So I'm still not going to bother with this. When you start talking rationally...maybe.

[Fairy]

That's Non-duality.

Having already showed you that Non-dualism is incoherent and self-refuting, I cannot help but marvel at your addiction to a belief system that cannot even possibly be true -- even if we believe everything it entails as premises.

So I'm still not going to bother with this. When you start talking rationally...maybe.

I cannot help but marvel at your addiction to a belief system that cannot even possibly be untrue.

Rationality has no meaning, nor comprehension, without also being irrationality.

[Fairy]

So I'm still not going to bother with this. When you start talking rationally...maybe.

That which appears as conditioned love, is never conditioned. There is only unconditional love.

You of all people IC should know that, being a God man.

[Fairy]

No man has ever been able to touch or know or reach God.


God is all there is, in this conception, through Christ, him Self.

This fleshless made flesh through the word.

It's concepts all the way down from above. As above, so below.......As within, so without. There is no separation.

Smile, you've just been turtled.

Don't follow me, for I too am lost.

[Fairy]

So I'm still not going to bother with this.

4d5b5d1cdcd28d9f0c066d95a4422375.jpg

[Alexis Jacobi]

What you really mean is that I know my position, and I don't give you ground on it. I have good reasons, and you don't like them. That does indeed make the debate become "futile," but only if your own position is intransigent and not open to data. Only you can decide whether that's the kind of position you wish to hold.

Thanks, I say sarcastically, for your restatement of what you believe I mean, but which is really what you'd like me to be saying.

I believe that you certainly have reasons, but it is not that I do not like them (exactly). However, I am committed not to launch into these sorts of conversations with you because of the futility I refer to.