Christianity

[Age]

Immanuel Can wrote:

"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor. 13:11-12)
……………………………………………….
Dontaskme wrote:

The above quote is another example of a Christian distortion.

In reality, No child ever became a man or woman...except in this artificial conception, known as the dream world.
……………………………………………..
By owl of Minerva:

Above is an example of metaphor “When I was a child…..” and an analysis of metaphor “In reality, no child ever became a man or a woman……..”

This is what analysis does to metaphor. It makes it appear nonsensical. It is the analysis that is nonsensical. Metaphor is to be understood without analysis.

If you CLAIM that 'metaphors' are to be understood, WITHOUT 'analysis', then WHY do 'you', human beings, write 'metaphors' and not just write what is to be understood instead, in the beginning?

As with the koan “what is the sound of one hand clapping” which is to be understood; its meaning grasped, without analysis.

What, EXACTLY, is its meaning? And, is this the EXACT SAME meaning EVERY one grasped?

An escape from the mind and its labyrinth contortions. An Aha! moment; an insight that gives the right answer.

When are you going to understand, and grasp, what thee ACTUAL meaning of the word 'Mind' IS?

Analyze the koan and it is nonsense. Grasp what it means and it gives a fundamental truth about reality.

What was the 'meaning' you 'grasped', and what was the 'fundamental truth about reality', which that 'meaning', you 'grasped', gave you?

Why is there such a problem with understanding metaphor. Can anyone explain that?

Why do you human beings not just write and speak thee ACTUAL Truth ONLY, instead of writing and speaking in riddles, or metaphors?

If 'you', human beings, did just write and speak thee ACTUAL Truth, ONLY, then there would NOT be a so-called "problem" that 'you', obviously, have with understanding metaphors.

And, if you think or BELIEVE that you have NO problem understanding metaphor "owl of minerva", then WHY NOT just write a book explaining what ALL metaphors ACTUALLY MEAN, so that the rest of humanity can understand metaphors AS WELL?

[Age]

"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor. 13:11-12)

The above quote is another example of a Christian distortion.

It can't be. It's a direct quotation from the Bible. Absent anything further, it is just what it is. It's what the document says.

WHICH 'bible' are you referring to here?

[Age]

The 'external reality' is the world itself -- and that world is the world of nature and matter which is manifest all around us. I think that we must agree -- all people will likely agree -- that that world, this manifest world in which we are all participating -- is solid and real and the same for all people.

Then you understand neither philosophy nor science. There are phenomena - that is the foundation of modern philosophy: I think, therefore I am. Science is the study of phenomena: observing, measuring and prediction. Philosophy is the explanation. If you are as smart as you hope, you will appreciate that the explanation makes no difference to the observation, measuring or prediction.

So, through "science" what is observed is the phenomena of the sun revolving around the earth. Through "science" this can also be measured, and predicted. That is; roughly every 24 hours the sun will "rise" and "set" while it travels or revolves around earth.

Through study this is what "science" gives us.

However, through explanation "philosophy" gives us thee ACTUAL Truth of things instead. That is; the sun revolving around the earth is only what 'appears' to the case from and for the observer, from a very specific position.

"philosophy" also explains that what is observed, measured, and predicted, through "science", is NOT always True, Right, NOR Correct, AT ALL. As PROVEN in the example above, as well as in the example that the observation, measurement, and prediction that the Universe began, is expanding, and will end, from and for 'you', human beings, on earth is just as False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN some human beings BELIEVE and say and CLAIM that the Universe DID BEGIN, IS EXPANDING, and WILL END because just like the ones who BELIEVED and said and CLAIMED that the sun revolves around the earth, they are just FOLLOWERS of what they are TOLD is true, by those they place as "gods", in the RELIGION they BELIEVE IN, that is; so-called "scientists" and "science", itself.

Through REAL 'philosophy' what is thee ACTUAL Truth of things is SEEN, or 'comes to light', as some say.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, observations, measurements, and predictions can be absolutely worthless and useless without 'explanation', itself. Therefore, 'explanation' can make a HUGE difference to the observation, measuring, or prediction.

Meh, sometimes prediction. For that reason some scientists insist that philosophy is useless.

"scientists" are absolutely FREE to 'insist' absolutely ANY thing AT ALL. However, EVERY "scientist" has been Wrong, in what they have predicted AND insisted. So, some of the observations and predictions "scientists" make ARE, literally, absolutely worthless AND useless.

Wakey wakey, Gus, you're actually quite bright; that fucking idiot is dragging you down.

[Age]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

The above quote is another example of a Christian distortion.

It can't be. It's a direct quotation from the Bible.

Which was written by...

I wonder if the irony in, "It is written in peer-reviewed scientific text. Therefore, it must be true", is also missed?

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here are the two 'religions', which existed, in the days when this was being written, and just how much the BELIEVERS and FOLLOWERS of each RELIGION were completely and utterly CLOSED to "thee other", which was ALSO CLOSING them ALL OFF to what thee ACTUAL ONLY Truth of things WAS, STILL IS, and ALWAYS WILL BE.

Their BELIEF in "their own religion" was CLOSING them OFF to EVERY thing, and NOT just to "thee other religion".

[Age]

Anything that requires an infinite chain of prerequisites (causes) never gets started.

The point is that also your hypothesis about the "first impulse" does not require "creation from nothing", on the contrary, the "first impulse" pushes the already existing matter.
(as in the Big Bang hypothesis).

Actually, the Big Bang, whatever we regard it to be, is not the first moment in the causal chain...or if it is, then the Big Bang is the creation from nothing.

There are only two rational possibilities for the BB: one is that there was nothing in existence before it, or the second is that there was something already in existence to make the explosion we call the BB possible. Very clear?

Now, scientists currently theorize that things like hydrogen and quark-gluon plasma were already possibly present before the Big Bang: you speak of "already-existing matter." Both produce the same problem: where did those come from? Were they, themselves the result of prior causes, or did they just pop into existence from nothing?

But we're still stuck with the infinite regress of causes problem.

WHEN will 'you', human beings, STOP being SO CLOSED?

Thee ACTUAL infinite regress of causes is, literally, NOT a 'problem' AT ALL.

If we point to an infinite chain of prior causes, then nothing would exist in the universe,

LOL
LOL
LOL

See how BELIEFS STOPPED the human beings, back in those days, from SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

because nothing would ever get started -- the chain would recede infinitely again.

These human beings ACTUALLY BELIEVED that there HAD TO BE 'a start'. Because this BELIEF CLOSED them, they were NOT able to SEE.

But then, we are inescapable drawn to the conclusion that somehow the BB or whatever "already existing matter" it came from, had to come from nothing.

Only the foolish and stupid were drawn to such a conclusion.

These human beings were also SO CLOSED, SO FOOLISH, and SO STUPID that they could NOT even SEE that 'the big bang' was the start and just the CLAIM of the "scientific" religion and that 'God' was the start and just the CLAIM of the "christian" religion. None of these people were thus ABLE to learn MORE or ANEW.

But what "first impulse," to use your term, shall we posit for such a thing happening? What can produce something from nothing, and generate a universe thereby?

Absolutely NOTHING, which includes God, Itself, OF COURSE.

The hypothesis is then very hard to evade: it must have been an "impulse" of immense power, capable of infusing not only great bursts of energy but also tremendous amounts of order into the universe, and then of creating stable rules and conditions in which the universe could continue to exist without instantly collapsing again, like most explosions normally would.

LOL

Like just about EVERY young child would then ask you, 'What then created this 'thing', with immense power and capabilities, which SUPPOSEDLY created
the WHOLE Universe, Itself?'

And children for thousands of years have been waiting for people like 'you', "immanuel can", to just answer this question.

And, we will remain waiting, PATIENTLY, for 'you', adult human beings, to answer this clarifying question, properly AND correctly.

The hypothesis is getting narrower by the minute, isn't it?

And, your hypothesis "immanuel can" that ALL-OF-THIS was created by some God was SO NARROWED that it has been an IMPOSSIBILITY, from the beginning.

[Age]

Nevertheless, the notion of a Holy Spirit is an idea that people do not talk about a great deal.

True. There's something very private about such a conversation.

Human beings like to keep things a 'secret' when they KNOW there is something Untrue or Wrong.

But that would be 'the spirit of inspiration', a creative spirit that, as it is conceived, can and does enter into human situations.

Not the way the Bible speaks of the Spirit. It does speak of "the spirit of man," but not always in complimentary terms. There's something very wrong with that "spirit." And it's always in contradistinction from the Spirit of God. (See, for example, 1 Cor. 2:12)

So though both are mentioned, it's not the same "spirit" in each case.

The idea of a spirit that operates independently of time -- eternally -- and guides or influences things in the mutable human world is an idea that must be thought about.

Indeed so.

I do not see how one can then dismiss the operations of this Holy Spirit.

Oh, I'm not doing that: I'm just pointing out that there is more than one "spirit" mentioned in this context, and that it's not "the Holy Spirit" that is always doing the "operations." So one would have to decide if the "operations" performed by the monolythic Catholic institution were generated from men or from God.

How one would do that is described in the Bible itself: "To the Law and to the testimony! If they do not speak in accordance with this word, it is because they have no dawn." (Isaiah 8:20)

Your view is essentially that it is your own view, your own position in history, in time, in the present, that justifies your particular interpretation.

That's actually not my view. My view is that it is God who justifies anybody's interpretation: and that if man's interpretation -- any man's interpretation, including my own -- fails to accord with God's, there can be no question at all of who is wrong.

...when they purify themselves...

Now, there's one thing no man can do. One can't purify oneself with dirty water. (See Romans 3)

... if there is a 'spiritual influence' it occurs to a person, within a person, and in no way independently of that person's self.

Right. That's what makes it merely "the spirit of man." It comes from man, and is not independent of him at all. And that's why it's not the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit.

It seems to me that the *correction* you speak about will often take place within a social -- for example a church -- setting. And it is in that setting that the influence one will receive comes through subjective persons who make the best effort they can to 'interpret' the influences of spirit.

It doesn't seem so. While there's no reason it can't come on a gathering (see, for example, Acts 10:44), far more frequently, it's revealed to lead the individual (See Gal. 5:18). So while "a social setting" is optional, it's by no means required for, or necessary to, the leading of the Spirit.

The key passage for understanding this would be John 16, when Jesus is speaking to his disciples, just before His death and resurrection...


"...if I do not leave, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world regarding sin, and righteousness, and judgment: regarding sin, because they do not believe in Me; and regarding righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you no longer are going to see Me; and regarding judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them at the present time. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take from Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; this is why I said that He takes from Mine and will disclose it to you."


So we can see that the Spirit is not something men have always had, or that all men have. He is given by God, to those who have believed in Christ. And the world knows nothing about Him, since it does not regard God as even existing, nor does it listen to any but its own "spirit." No wonder, then, that Christ says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Again, one must be born again, born from above, to experience the leading of God's Spirit. It's not a universal human experience.

[Age]

the picture is not the reality

Of course not. But, if the picture is meant to inform (rather than entertain or satisfy or distract) it ought be fidelitous, yeah?

We ought be fidelitous, yeah?

So, WHY are you very often NOT fidelitous "henry quirk"?

[Belinda]

However if God can intervene to alter His pre-ordained plan

"Pre-ordained"? That's Fatalism. I'm not a Fatalist, nor do I find that the Biblical God pre-cooks the future for us. Rather, I note that God often uses the word "if," as in "if you go this way, this will happen," and "if you go that way, that will happen." But in a Fatalistic world, there is no such thing as "if," no other way things could have been, other than the way they actually are.

It seems that God shares with humans, uniquely among all His creations, the faculty of making choices...choices that actually count, that actually change things. And while God shows repeatedly that He also knows what every possible choice will entail subsequently, it's apparent He does not choose on our behalf, forcing us to choose only one way. He leaves us free, and gives us options.

And that, of course, is the sine qua non of love.

...He would have intervened to stop concentration camps, the Battle of the Somme, and all interminable and useless suffering.

I agree those are horrendous things. And both of them are things human beings, in their rebellion against God , chose to do. I also agree that God is powerful enough, should He have done so, to end all those involved, instantly, or to have completely prevented their choosing the evil they did in the first place.

If He had, if He were intervening to stop evil, then we would have to ask "How much evil must a righteous God prevent?" And the answer would be obvious, I think: all of it. If a righteous God must intervene to stop the Somme, then He also is obligated to stop lesser evils, and even whatever evils IC or Belinda might sometimes choose...even small ones.

If He did that, then choice would be gone again, wouldn't it? Man would only be allowed to do good things, things God approved of, but never even possibly able to choose anything other than God's way. But without an alternate choice, man again is reduced to robotics, and again, relationship becomes impossible.

Job was a loving man because Job loved God despite suffering. The lesson from the Book of Job is not that God is all powerful but that God is the indomitable spirit of man that struggles on and on despite.

That's a reading the Humanists would like. But it's different from the actual Biblical reading of that incident. What Job shows is that God is not unaware of the fact of suffering or its consequences on man, but His greater wisdom recognizes a higher good...the possibility of relationship...and God is willing to allow suffering, even for apparently good men, so that they may remain free, and choose what they will love.

You see this in God's answer to Job, at the end of the book. It is not a vindication of Job, but of the ways and wisdom of God Himself.

A man who chooses that others suffer to prove how much they love him is a narcissist.

You mistake the idea of God's pre-ordained plan. God's ordained plan is not fatalism, it's a plan that includes change. If there were an all-knowing spirit it would know the past and the future but men are not all-knowing spirits ; determinism does not imply prediction. I have pointed this out to you before perhaps and you have forgotten.

[Age]

Science is the study of phenomena: observing, measuring and prediction.

...Sure, within the realm to which science and measurement devote themselves.

What is measurable that science can't measure?

I think I understand it well enough.

Well done you. So what is science?

But I do think that you have a strict and limited view of philosophy. Which follows, of course, given your core position as an atheist.

Really? You think not committing to a belief is strict and limited?

Committing to DISBELIEVING, exactly like committing to BELIEVING, are equally just as strict and limited as each other is.

[henry quirk]

And, so you did not sound completely insane here, you conveniently left out that 'God', to you, is a person.

nope

So your deity exists but he is not conscious, is that what you are saying?

Not at all: my God is a person.

learn to follow a thread

[owl of Minerva]

By Age:


“And, if you think or BELIEVE that you have NO problem understanding metaphor "owl of minerva", then WHY NOT just write a book explaining what ALL metaphors ACTUALLY MEAN, so that the rest of humanity can understand metaphors AS WELL? “

…………………………………………………….
By owl of Minerva:

That may not be helpful. The adage ‘there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip’ is true. You may also have heard the expression: ‘lost in translation.’

Heraclitus said: ‘The hidden harmony is better than the obvious.’ The harmony of the whole is lost in translation. Or worse massacred, denounced, misrepresented or hijacked for nefarious purposes. Better to leave the pearl in the oyster. Those who find it and appreciate it will leave it there as well and not bandy it about or make a philosophical or theological conundrum out of it through analysis.

[Age]

I assume that you needed to apply a new or different or alternative way of seeing, and thus of perceiving and being, because you felt constrained by the limitations imposed in your early formation as a Christian -- that is if I have interpreted what you have written accurately.

Does a person need to replace Christianity with something specific... or can it be that Christianity is just let go?

Feeling a 'need to', or just actually, replacing ANY BELIEF with ANY OTHER BELIEF is just plain old INSANITY, to the highest degree.

Is it not sensible for a person to say 'I will take the value I see from each path and continue exploring, as there is no single path I want to follow'?

Do you NOT want to follow the path, which is the most Honest and Truthful, or, in other words, literally, the most straightforward, easiest, and simplest path in Life?

Or, do you want to follow paths that make things HARD and/or COMPLEX in Life for you?

Also, because you OBVIOUSLY do NOT want to follow ANY single path in Life, due to your current BELIEF, no matter how Right and Good it is, this does NOT mean that "others" do NOT want to follow the single most Honest and Truthful path in Life.

But what happens when they let go of needing to be 'right', and realize how much more there is than that?

This is something I have thought a great deal about because I am a product of *radical California*

So am I, and thankfully so... although I don't refer to it that way, and I don't live there anymore. I felt aligned with it from the time I arrived there. I imagine there are other places in the world that tend to explore beyond conventions. I appreciate that -- it seems more reasonable and beneficial to me than not doing so. I understand why people find value in conventions

What value is there, supposedly, in conventions that are NOT actually Truthful and Right?

-- but there's a difference (for me) between using conventions that make life efficient, and handing one's life and potential over to conventions.

Is the BELIEF that, There is NO one single, absolute Truth, a convention?

Or, would Honestly ADMITTING that it, OBVIOUSLY, IS be too much of a CONTRADICTION for you to do?

this general influence to come up with new paradigms, new and radical ways of being

Is that bad? Do you think that what I've said and suggested is outrageous and disruptive?

Well it CERTAINLY IS NOT Honest and Truthful, and so is just MORE, and ANOTHER one, of the outrageous and disruptive things 'you', adult human beings, say and BELIEVE in.

It seems sensible and useful to me.

OF COURSE it does. Otherwise you would NOT BELIEVE in it and PREACH it, as often as you do here.

And, by the way, how useful has it ACTUALLY BEEN in your life?

If ANY, then will you provide us with some examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Is it possible to see how Christianity is outrageous and disruptive?

Is it possible for you to see how your BELIEF is outrageous and disruptive?

Also, is it possible to see the things that are NOT outrageous NOR disruptive in "christianity"? Or, are these things the ONLY things you can see in "christianity"?

Do convention and tradition get a 'free pass' to escape the same level of scrutiny that is applied to what is seen as radical thought?

I think we have to understand the emergence of the post-Christian culture. Obviously, given the political and social problems that are starkly visible in America today this 'seeing and understanding' become imperative.

It appears to me that Christianity developed to serve the people at that time (of its development),

What was 'it' that the people, 'at that time', needed a thing to develop to 'serve those people'? Or, in other words, what is in "christianity" that could 'serve' the people, 'of those times'?

but it has morphed into something much different to serve and be manipulated by people of our time.

What has "christianity" supposedly 'morphed' into, which "others" supposedly do NOT see, yet you do see?

The 'good' it inspires is not exclusive to nor dependent on Christianity.

What does the word 'it' here refer to, exactly?

Inspiration and 'good' comes through humans in countless ways.

OBVIOUSLY, but some people judge "others" as being wrong or no good, just because they might label "themselves" with words and names like, "I am a christian".

It seems to me that Christianity is tangled up in archaic beliefs that actually stunt our development and limit our awareness.

It is VERY CLEAR that ANY one who has or holds ANY BELIEF is ACTUALLY stunted in development and is, literally, limited in Awareness. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True by the writings and views, 'at those times', of the people in this forum,

We cling to it in fear, rather than stepping aside from it to recognize the SAME good all throughout us.

And 'you', "lacewing", here, are a PRIME EXAMPLE of this EXACT behavior.

A recognition of love and good and reverence is what I share with the Christian view -- I just don't assign it to the framework they do.

So, end of story, and just move on, correct?

In many ways, it appears that I (and countless others) experience more acceptance and love and gratitude than some who would call themselves true Christians.

Again, this is VERY, VERY OBVIOUS.

And, what is ALSO VERY, VERY OBVIOUS here is 'you', "lacewing", just like a lot of so-called "christians", do NOT accept and love "others" if they do NOT follow and adhere to YOUR BELIEFS.

So what are those Christians actually doing, and who are they actually serving? I think it's reasonable to ask.

What they are doing is what ALL of 'you', adult human beings, did, 'in those days', when this was being written. They are CONTRADICTING their OWN words and BELIEFS.

And, who ALL of 'you' were serving in those days, were your OWN greedy AND selfish "selves".

When one gives up understanding what is *right* one give up belief in what is right and also good.

Well, that's not quite what I said, nor my intent of course! I'm speaking about a person's focus/agenda on being 'right' above all else -- such that they are inclined to manipulate and deny that which does not align with them.

A great example of this is if, and when, one has an agenda, and focuses their attention on being "right" about that agenda, like, for example the agenda;THERE is NO One Truth"

One can be said to enter into a zone of uncertainty. If one cannot decide, one cannot build because one does not have a solid ground on which to build, nor the definite tools needed to build.

What are we building? What is our purpose? Does certainty have as much capability of limiting us as uncertainty?

But building on top of what one just says they are "certain of", but which is NOT YET PROVED to ACTUALLY be True, Right, or Correct, can, and WILL, cause and create a TUMBLE, CRASH, and FALL, "of biblical dimensions", as some might say.

And when this happens to ALL of 'you', adult human beings, the rest of us are WAITING FOR.

By the way, in those days, when this was being written, what 'you' were building was 'a mess'. What was your purpose IS the SAME as it ALWAYS IS. And, it could well be argued that being 'uncertain' is FAR WISER, and NOT AT ALL 'limiting', like 'certainty' WITHOUT PROOF ACTUALLY IS.

For example, when one of 'you' is CERTAIN, is it because you have thee ACTUAL and thus forever more IRREFUTABLE Truth, or just because you BELIEVE it is true? Gain that KNOWLEDGE and WISDOM, and then you will KNOW where AND when to start 'building' from.

I am not suggesting that we somehow suddenly and completely throw out all convention.

WHY NOT?

I would and do suggest that you ALL start, suddenly AND completely, throwing out ALL convention that can NOT be PROVED to be IRREFUTABLY True. And then, START AGAIN.

But each to their own.

I am suggesting that we recognize convention for what it is...

What IS 'convention'?

Will 'you' help us to 'recognize' what 'convention' ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY, also?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then could this be because you are NOT YET CERTAIN of what 'convention', itself, ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY? Or, do you just NOT want to help us recognize what you ALREADY apparently KNOW? Or, is there some thing else at play here?

and be aware of the limitations that it may impose,

Would this be like being AWARE of the 'limitations' imposed on the convention that, "There is NO One Truth", actually has on those with that BELIEF?

as well as considering the potential that exists beyond it.

Have the people with that BELIEF, actually, 'considered' the potential beyond that BELIEF and convention?

If yes, then what have they ACTUALLY considered could be beyond that BELIEF and convention?

There can be value in doing that.

Yes there COULD BE.

Some people may not want to do that.

As has been PROVED True MANY, MANY times throughout just this forum.

Many people, like myself, seek a balance between having enough structure to build lives, but not worshipping those structures -- so that we can see beyond them.

And, LOL here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how FOOLED these people, 'in those days', REALLY were, and ALL by their OWN making and doing. That is; they did NOT have to have, hold onto, and NOR maintain those BELIEFS which, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, they continually DID, 'in those times'.

[Age]

Does a person need to replace Christianity with something specific... or can it be that Christianity is just let go?

To answer such a broad question, and one so intimately bound up in Occidental categories -- indeed our *Occidental civilization* itself, would require a great deal of careful preamble.

When one is Truly Honest, then the answer to the first part of the question is, OBVIOUSLY, 'No', and, to the second part of that question, the Truly Honest answer is, OBVIOUSLY, 'Yes'.

NO so-called "careful preamble" required AT ALL.

The only thing that was REALLY required here was just Honesty, and OPENNESS.

So, now that that HAS been answered, we can move along.

What you seem to be asking, however, is Is it good, or necessary, for one solitary individual to 'let it go'.

Why did that question 'seem' to be asking this, to you?

What were you actually ASSUMING, which made that question 'appear' that way, to you?

But isn't the question you ask more or less a statement about what you yourself have done? How would you answer the question for another? How could you answer the question if (as I say) it pertains to Occidental civilization and Occidental categories of valuation?

What does the word 'Occidental' here mean or refer to you, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Is that bad? Do you think that what I've said and suggested is outrageous and disruptive? It seems sensible and useful to me. Is it possible to see how Christianity is outrageous and disruptive? Do convention and tradition get a 'free pass' to escape the same level of scrutiny that is applied to what is seen as radical thought?

I do not think that I would say that it was *bad*. Because things are what they are. Things happen. Some things get better and improve, some things deteriorate and get corrupt.

In order for you to make sense of my position you would have to understand that I do regard a large aspect of the Sixties (and radicalism, and also blind rebellion of a general sort) to have resulted in destructive outcomes. But I could not ever say that it was all bad.

But there is very little in life that is *all bad*. And there are often positive elements in generally bad situations or occurrences.

But what I can say is that after everything is said and done, and speaking specifically about the Sixties and all that transpired, that in the end it all has to be assessed -- that is, someone must assess it. There has to be some value-system that assesses it. And for there to be a value-system there has to be a recognition of how values come to be defined.

WHY, to you, 'must there be', and, WHY, to you, does there 'have to be'?

How values come to be valued. And in this context, in our culture, I can say with a high degree of certainty that underneath all our valuations one will find the larger, Christian conversation.

When 'you' say 'our' here, who or what are 'you' referring to, EXACTLY?

In 'whose or what's culture' are 'you' LOOKING AT things from here?

So the way I see things -- this is my position, or my proposition -- that when that which produced our system of values and indeed underscores valuation is itself undermined, then in a slow decay the very notion of values is undermined. People do lose a grip on what is to be valued, and why it is to be valued.

When 'you' said, "-- that when that which produced ...", what does the second 'that' refer to, EXACTLY?

All my arguments are based in an examination of causation.

What are you 'trying to' argue for, or against, here, EXACTLY?

Also, what else is there of 'causation' is there to be 'examined', EXACTLY?

Nothing in our world simply arises out of nothing.

VERY, VERY True. And, what is just AS True, but contrary to some's BELIEF, nothing, 'in our world', simply arises out of some thing NOT 'of our world'?

There are long causal chains.

But there is only One causal chain, which goes on FOREVER, and of which EVERY thing has arisen and will arise.

[Age]

What are we building? What is our purpose? Does certainty have as much capability of limiting us as uncertainty?

Well, there you have brought out the question! It is the largest question that can be asked.

What does the word 'largest' mean in relation to the word 'question'?

And, what are the words 'largest question' in relation to, EXACTLY?

My view is that *the Culture Wars* have to do with essential questions of value and valuation.

And the things we are talking about here are definitely tied to and bound up in the Culture Wars.

So it is good to get the proper questions out in the open.

So, although you call "lacewing's" question, "the question", and, "the largest question that can be asked", and you also CLAIM that "it is good to get "the proper questions" out in the open', you have OBVIOUSLY STILL refused, or have just forgotten, to JUST ANSWER It.

Also, WHY do, so-called, "culture wars" exist? And, WHY do 'you' participate in them?