Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Belinda » Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:52 am

Attofishpi wrote:
Actually you are wrong. This entity has 'manifested' itself to me for many years. I have little doubt, that many in the history of the creation of (man's) work - the bible, have also had direct 'manifestation' of this 'God' entity.
Is the 'God' entity which you have experienced a good and powerful entity? If so how can you explain the problem of evil?

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by attofishpi » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:10 am

Belinda wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:52 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Actually you are wrong. This entity has 'manifested' itself to me for many years. I have little doubt, that many in the history of the creation of (man's) work - the bible, have also had direct 'manifestation' of this 'God' entity.
Is the 'God' entity which you have experienced a good and powerful entity? If so how can you explain the problem of evil?
Haha, far from it (good), but it had its reasons. Extremely powerful.

And evil? The only evil I see in the world is stupid humans and their abhorrent behaviour.

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Belinda » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:41 am

Attofishpi wrote:
Haha, far from it (good), but it had its reasons. Extremely powerful.

And evil? The only evil I see in the world is stupid humans and their abhorrent behaviour.
But the problem of evil is much much more than your own experiences.

There is not only abhorrent human evil but also natural evils that are not made by humans. How can an all-powerful God be just? If he's not just how can God be good? if not absolutely good how can you revere him any more than you might revere any quite good man?

Is The Bible your only reading about man's past?

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by attofishpi » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:32 am

Belinda wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:41 am
Attofishpi wrote:
Haha, far from it (good), but it had its reasons. Extremely powerful.

And evil? The only evil I see in the world is stupid humans and their abhorrent behaviour.
But the problem of evil is much much more than your own experiences.

There is not only abhorrent human evil but also natural evils that are not made by humans.
By that I think you are referring to the likes of earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes etc etc..?
Belinda wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:41 am
How can an all-powerful God be just?
I've been on this forum a long time and find myself having to constantly repeat myself. Are you suggesting we should exist in some sort of heaven?
Belinda wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:41 am
If he's not just how can God be good?
'It', is not ALL good.
Belinda wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:41 am
if not absolutely good how can you revere him any more than you might revere any quite good man?
Where have I stated I revere 'it'?
Belinda wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:41 am
Is The Bible your only reading about man's past?
Do you take me for a fool?

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Belinda » Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:29 pm

Attofishpi, when God is spelled with a capital letter, as you did ,it is a personal name . It's the personal name of the Judeo-Christian god.

I naturally assumed that the deity you meant was the Judeo-Christian god with the attributes of absolute goodness, absolute knowledge, and absolute power. I have no idea which deity you are talking about.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by attofishpi » Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:14 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:29 pm
Attofishpi, when God is spelled with a capital letter, as you did ,it is a personal name . It's the personal name of the Judeo-Christian god.

I naturally assumed that the deity you meant was the Judeo-Christian god with the attributes of absolute goodness, absolute knowledge, and absolute power. I have no idea which deity you are talking about.
Oh, and I have no idea where you are getting the idea of a God with the attributes:- absolute goodness, absolute knowledge, and absolute power.

Please cite your sources and include the relevant verbatim text.
Last edited by attofishpi on Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Belinda » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:55 am

There is no such thing as "a God". You should say "a god" , or alternatively "God". A capital letter denotes a proper name just as my name is Belinda with a capital initial letter, and I am a woman with a lower case initial letter.

I know it's confusing that God is a god, same spelling.

Perhaps if you read up on 'the problem of evil' you will understand better than I can explain it. I will try to find a link for you.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by attofishpi » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:04 pm

Belinda wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:29 pm
Attofishpi, when God is spelled with a capital letter, as you did ,it is a personal name . It's the personal name of the Judeo-Christian god.

I naturally assumed that the deity you meant was the Judeo-Christian god with the attributes of absolute goodness, absolute knowledge, and absolute power. I have no idea which deity you are talking about.
So why don't you continue with your natural assumption and answer my statement:-

"I have no idea where you are getting the idea of God with the attributes:- absolute goodness, absolute knowledge, and absolute power."

Please cite your sources and include the relevant verbatim text.

Belinda
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Belinda » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:48 pm

I cannot remember where I first learned it, Attofishpi.Must have been sixty or so years ago.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by attofishpi » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:00 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:48 pm
I cannot remember where I first learned it, Attofishpi.Must have been sixty or so years ago.
So since you are about twenty, it must have been in your previous life. :D

Alizia
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:04 pm

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Alizia » Wed May 08, 2019 3:11 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:34 pm
Alizia wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:34 pm
To a Catholic there is a whole other range of information that enters into the picture. Yes, scripture has high relevance. But 'we' have a whole other information-set (unsure how to express it) and that is 'tradition'.
Actually, 'tradition' expresses it very well, being the word the Vatican uses itself. It is no coincidence that the Mafia calls itself 'cosa nostra' - 'our thing'. The church and the Medici had their things, both of which exploited the disenfranchised, some of whom decided to be as corrupt and violent as religion and politics. The whole point of Protestantism was to break with 'tradition' and give control of scripture to individuals. People liked the idea that Jesus could save them, but they wanted salvation on their own terms. The only authority was 'sola scriptura'. The Bible was printed in the vernacular and anyone could interpret it as they saw fit. So now there is a denomination to suit most tastes. If you can't find one that fits, just make up your own, accuse anyone that challenges you of heresy and condemn them to eternal torture, if that pleases you. Which is exactly what Mr Can and his type have done.
Now, now!

I thought of making a few comments but I do not perceive that you are interested in the topic, except if it involves condemnation. I do not say that I blame you necessarily for operating from a perspective of condemnation. But I suppose that to be frank -- that is, if you were frank -- you would (likely?) say that you are a complete atheist and do not value nor respect the 'traditions' referred to, nor do you find much value in the essence of Christian belief (obviously, as an atheist does not believe in such essences, and thus is an atheist!)

My question is rather different. I want to discover what those essences really are, and how and why they were perceived as fundamental truths, and also why the persisted (and persist), and then also how these persistent truths have moulded people, ideas, literature, values, and meaning. Though I respect your choice (which seems to me one of total rejection)(?) I would find that choice quite improper. I would say that it is 'unfair' if I were charitable, and non-intelligent if I were in a bad mood. (Yet I could never and would never say that you are non-intelligent. Indeed you seem quite the opposite).

Some days I feel *like the smile of the Cheshire Cat*. It hangs there in the air, unsupported by reason, rather unbelievable -- impossible! -- and I note that the supporting ground for the belief in the smile has been completely removed, undermined, and yet I still a) believe in it, or b) insist on believing what is unbelievable as a perverse act of an erring will!

But in truth I am spiritually weak. Or perhaps my problem is something else, something I can't see and recognize? Though I am technically Catholic I must say that the liturgy of the (present) Catholic Church is horrifying to me in many ways. (The old liturgies, for example in the Breviary or in the Missal and definitely in the Psaltery are rich and to me amazing).

This might be something you are unfamiliar with: the changes in Catholic liturgy that resulted from the 'revolution' in the Church in the post-Vatican ll era. And since there are no traditional (Latin) masses anywhere nearby I just don't attend church. I can't bear the noise of it (and I think Mass should be silent as one 'hears' it and engages with it). I exist in my own 'little world of belief' and only try to be sincere with myself while at the same time trying to be sincere with God. Frankly, and though I admire Catholic theology and find it really quite well thought-out and value-rich, I sort of experience envy of the more 'immediate' relationship that some Evangelicals have. Catholicism can sometimes seem like an array of 'layers' established between the person (the soul if you will) and God. Well, that will result after 1500 years of laden history.

Alizia
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:04 pm

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Alizia » Wed May 08, 2019 3:23 pm

Dubious wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:38 am
Alizia wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:35 am
I can understand why someone would have no 'god inclusion'. But would you not say that, somehow, what is, what happens, what occurs, in this and 'all possible worlds', is happening because it has been programmed in as 'possibility'?
I would give it a definite YES whether as possibility or potential. But within the realm of each exist a myriad of different outcomes. Consciousness itself having reached a certain flash point could go many different paths but history only records a few and these invariably are related to each other even though they appear distinct.
By saying 'yes' you have, in some way, admitted to the point that I wanted to make (and one that I always return to, and the one that essentially keeps me linked to Christian view, and as a theist). If everything was 'encapsulated' within the possibility that existed at the beginning, it implies a sort of pre-arrangement. Then, as the Chinese might say, 'everything flowed into their forms'. There you have my rather primitive musing on the notion of 'infinite regress'. St Thomas would be embarrassed I am sure!

I think sometimes that we are dealing on issues that have to do with description: the way things are stated. You seem not to allow a 'god inclusion' as you have put it, and yet if you recognize what you term 'potential' or 'possibility', your view is in certain ways non-different from Thomist view. Perhaps you simply reject the notion of an interventionist god?

What do you mean when you refer to a 'flash-point' and of consciousness having the potential to go along 'different paths'? Are these conceivable paths or are they inconceivable ones?

Alizia
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:04 pm

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Alizia » Wed May 08, 2019 3:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:39 pm
As it happens, I am not a Catholic, but I am not mounting a criticism of the Catholic church. I'm really just trying to say that in Europe there are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, do not identify as Catholic, whose ancestors didn't, and who never really will: so Belloc's net is now very small. And what he says is really not true: Europe is not Catholicism, and Catholicism isn't Europe.
I would mention what many Catholics often mention: Catholicism is the substantial root of all the Christian denominations. Europe became Christian through the influence and teaching of the Church. I see no way around this. And, I am interested in the idea that schism is not a 'good thing'. It would have to be confronted, at one point or another it seems to me.
I'm not hunting for Catholics. I'm just taking issue with Belloc. That's all.

Well, one can follow the scent, no? Onions and garlic? :-)
The primary problems are spiritual and personal: the political problems are merely a large and dangerous manifestation of the inner pathologies of human beings. And you can see this is true. From where comes "the political"? It is a product purely of human engineering. So from where have the faults in it come? From the social engineers and inventors of the political forms. Why did these engineers do such faulty work? Because they were, themselves, filled with faults. Fallen human beings have engineered fallen political systems.
I have been reading some Julius Evola and it appear that in the end he could only conceive of distinguishing a profound chasm between 'the world' and what it does, and what a given person chooses to do.

The problem you allude to is real, and also rather stultifying. The 'world' is careening off in such strange directions, having been set in motion by causes established by those 'engineers' you mention. It is out of control and there is little one can do. Things just have to go on and who knows how things will end up?
Last edited by Alizia on Wed May 08, 2019 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5709
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed May 08, 2019 3:36 pm

Alizia wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 3:30 pm
I'm not hunting for Catholics. I'm just taking issue with Belloc. That's all.

Well, one can follow the scent, no? Onions and garlic? :-)
If telling the truth puts Belloc in a bad light, I cannot help that.

Alizia
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:04 pm

Re: Ronald Beiner and his book "Dangerous Minds"

Post by Alizia » Wed May 08, 2019 3:51 pm

A few things. I don't think Belloc ate much onion and garlic. Though he did like good red wine.
The Church is a perpetually defeated thing that always outlives her conquerers.
If we are to be happy, decent and secure of our souls: drink some kind of fermented liquor with one's food; go on the water from time to time; dance on occasion, and sing in a chorus.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests