Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by seeds »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 1:24 pm
attofishpi wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:12 pm Mind you don't get involved with some of the African natives that clearly have gone psychopathic since white man and his colonial overreach

Tutsi and Hutu - interview with a survivor
https://youtu.be/owNlSNNd7tw

Child sacrifice (required an English girl that was in Uganda to encourage their govt to legislate against it)
https://youtu.be/VQTNB4ROSlI
I watched both videos. I think the lessons to be drawn from them are that the white race is not the only one to commit horrific injustices, but also not the only one with fierce fighters for justice. Full credit to the two women featured in those videos. They are brave and heroic.
The following is an excerpt from an article that appeared in The Christian Science Monitor:

"Why Do Hutus and Tutsis Fight? A Thumbnail History" by Ed O'Loughlin (emphasis mine)...
"French historian Gerard Prunier says there is no evidence of systematic violence between Hutus and Tutsis in precolonial times. But Tutsis were used by colonial powers Germany and later Belgium to rule Burundi and Rwanda. The Tutsis sometimes abused their powers to seize Hutu land. Hutu resentment spilled over into massacres in 1959, driving hundreds of thousands of Tutsis into exile and culminated in the genocide of 1994.

The genocide was fueled by colonial-era resentments and Belgian-inspired racial myths,... "
Notice that it was the intrusion and meddling of outside (white) colonial powers that led to the "seizing of Hutu land" by the Tutsis, and thus, again, land theft seems to be a recurring theme that causes a great deal of strife in this world.

I guess my point is, don't be so fast to exclude the white race's involvement in the Rwandan tragedy.

And, yes, as you so rightly pointed out, the two women in those videos are indeed brave and heroic.

However, we should all be gob smacked at the notion that in the year 2021, a law prohibiting human sacrifice needed to be passed somewhere in the world (good gawd almighty!!!).
_______
Will Bouwman
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Will Bouwman »

seeds wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:10 pmHowever, we should all be gob smacked at the notion that in the year 2021, a law prohibiting human sacrifice needed to be passed somewhere in the world (good gawd almighty!!!).
It is absolutely gobsmacking, seeds. Having said that, nearly a third of the world's population who are at least nominally Christian believe it is the only route to salvation.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:26 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:21 pm What appears to be blithe to me.
Not such a fan of satire, huh?
Depends what the purpose of the satire is and whether it's a constructive one or destructive one.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

Will Bouwman wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:29 pm
seeds wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:10 pmHowever, we should all be gob smacked at the notion that in the year 2021, a law prohibiting human sacrifice needed to be passed somewhere in the world (good gawd almighty!!!).
It is absolutely gobsmacking, seeds. Having said that, nearly a third of the world's population who are at least nominally Christian believe it is the only route to salvation.
To be fair, I believe Christ is supposedly the one who broke the entire cycle of humans sacrificing anything other than our own tempers and destructive thoughts and told to replace those thoughts with love for God and love for one another. Although I have to admit it's a difficult thing to do (love everyone).

I believe Christ was on to something profound. Though, I do feel resentment at times that God apparently created such a world where we have struggle with so many things, such as to love one another. (Assuming there is a God.)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:04 pm I have never ignored that you deny having a "Pravda", I just don't think it's true.
You're free to think as you think, of course. Everybody has a right to be wrong.

But the legacy media contradicts itself. It needs nobody else to prove it's lying...no sources from me. So you can keep thinking as pleases you...but it won't excuse the legacy media, even if there were nobody else to contradict them.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:48 am
iambiguous wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:40 am
Gary Childress wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:46 pm What if "existential contraptions rooted subjectively in dasein" is just an "existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein". Then what? Do her convictions then get the possibility of their objectivity restored?
Well, if you were more familiar with my own frame of mind, you'd know I often acknowledge I do not exclude myself from my own point of view. I am no more able to actually demonstrate that moral nihilism is in fact true objectively than, in my view, the moral objectivists are.
Do you mean to say you do not exclude yourself from your own point of view, or do you mean to say you do not exclude yourself from having your own point of view?
Again, for me, what's most important is the context. My own point of view in regard to what? If someone were to ask me "what's your point of view on whether the Catholic Pope resides in the Vatican"?, I'd tell them that based on all of the information and evidence that I have been able to gather, Catholic Popes do reside in the Vatican. Can I demonstrate that personally? Nope. Never met an actually flesh and blood Pope myself in the Vatican. But I do feel reasonably confident that the overwhelming preponderance of others will concur with me. On the other hand, in regard to the Christian God residing in Heaven, based on all the information and evidence that I have been able to gather, I conclude that no one has been able to demonstrate this as objectively true to me.

But excluding or including oneself from any point of view finally comes down [for me] to the context and that which is in fact able to be demonstrated as true for all of us objectively.

Of course whether we choose [in a free will world] to have a point of view about something depends on what has existentially/subjectively become important to us, Do we feel we need to have one? And, if so, are we able to establish that all other rational men and women are obligated to share it.

Again, it's the difference between establishing that Joe Biden is the president currently occupying the White House and establishing that Joe Biden is doing a great job as the president there.
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:48 amIf others don't know how steeped they are in their own views, how can you be sure that in itself is not you being steeped in your own views?
Given what context? "Steeped" in what sense? In regard to abortion, for example, there were factors and experiences in my own particular life that "I" was steeped in...factors and experiences explored in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Factors and experiences that predisposed me existentially to embrace a point of view encompassed in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121

But what here can I demonstrate to others such that they too will think like this? And what can they demonstrate to me that might prompt me to change my mind?

What else is there here for us?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:19 am
iambiguous wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:29 am What I mean by [objectivist] is someone who often reacts in an "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" manner towards those who don't share their own moral or political or religious value judgments.
No offence intended, but that definition seems to me to be a little more tendentious than necessary. My own definition is a little different: someone whose perceptions and reasoning convinces them that there are moral and/or political and/or religious value judgements that are objectively correct; that is, that are correct independently of anybody's (subjective) opinion.
As always, what I do here is attempt to shift the discussion from definitions to actual sets of circumstances in which the words we define in discussing things like Christianity are fleshed out existentially. Does someone here believe that they can demonstrate the existence of the Christian God [however they define Him] such that in choosing Christianity as the One True Path we acquire objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it? And how much more "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" can one get then to insist that if others do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior they will burn in Hell for all of eternity?
iambiguous wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:29 am Why? Because as often as not they are convinced they are in sync with the Real Me in sync further with the Right Thing To Do. About what? Well, to cite just one example: everything under the Sun.

Thus enabling them to divide up the world between "one of us" [the smart, good guys] and "one of them" [the dumb, evil guys].

Both sides here are "woke". It's just each side has their own collection of political prejudices that others are expected to be wide awake regarding. Our rendition of "politically correct" not theirs.
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:19 amI do acknowledge the problem that underlies all of this: even if there are objective values, it is up to individual subjects to recognise as much, which they might not, instead mistakenly presenting their own subjective - and objectively false - values as truly objective, and mistakenly doing so zealously and fanatically.

At least, that's how I put it in this context.
But, from my frame of mind, that is still largely a "general description intellectual contraption" assessment. What particular "individual subjects" given what particular set of circumstances, given what particular alleged "objective values"?

Christianity and abortion for example. Again, with Heaven or Hell literally riding on the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave.
iambiguous wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:29 am And it's not whether we see eye to eye here in terms of what we think or believe about Christianity...it's what we are actually able to demonstrate is in fact true such that all rational people really are obligated to think and to believe the same thing.
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:19 amYour allusion here to the need for inter-subjective standards by which truth can be reasonably demonstrated is well noted. Perhaps it's a direction for this thread to take - finding agreement at least as to what those standards are or should be, even if we can't agree on anything else.
I'm ever and always for those here demonstrating conclusively that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven. Indeed, once I'm convinced of that I'll certainly recognize Jesus Christ as my own personal savior. If it comes down to immortality and salvation or oblivion, why would I choose utter extinction?

But that's just me. Here and now. A frame of mind no less derived existentially from dasein.
iambiguous wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:29 am Well, I encompass my own understanding of [dasein] in the OPs of these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Then I ask others how, given a particular set of circumstances, they do not construe their own sense of identity in regard to moral and political conflagrations of note in the same way.

As for "human existence" itself, grasping that will always be profoundly problematic. Why? Because there is an enormous gap between what any particular individual thinks it means and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to truly grasp it.
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:19 amI see. It seems to me that based on all of that, your definition or at least understanding of dasein is encapsulated as: "The full context of a human being's existence, which colours that being's perceptions and, more importantly, values".
No, my point is that whatever "here and now" I construe to be the "full context" of my own existence is still embedded in "the gap" between "I" and "all there is". I am still no less an "infinitesimally insignificant speck of existence in the staggering vastness of all there is".

How vast?
Here I like to come back to this:

Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.
The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.
So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.
To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.
Or consider this:
"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"
The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.
Or this:
"The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Light reaching us from the earliest known galaxies has been traveling, therefore, for more than 13 billion years. So one might assume that the radius of the universe is 13.7 billion light-years and that the whole shebang is double that, or 27.4 billion light-years wide."
For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.
As for situating "I" in all of this...?

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.
iambiguous wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:29 am Then the part where we don't even know for certain if the human brain itself either is or is not in turn just an inherent component of the laws of matter. That this entire exchange is but another domino toppling over in the only possible reality in the only possible world.
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:19 amAgain, no offence intended, but the whole "dominoes toppling" take on the will seems very implausible to me. That the will is free is a very defensible or at least plausible notion, in much the same respect as the proposition that solipsism is false is very defensible or at least plausible.
Same thing.

What seems plausible to anyone here "in their head" is one thing, demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to find it plausible in turn another thing altogether.

Instead, the neuroscientists are attempting to grapple with this...
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.
...more experientially, experimentally.

After all, what is the philosophical equivalent of the "scientific method" in exploring this particular "domino theory"?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

(Please excuse if this is a repeat of a discussion elsewhere.)

People who think an almighty deity created the world are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

'We find a previously unnoticed common thread between believing in creationism and believing in conspiracy theories,' Sebastian Dieguez, lead author of a study from the University of Fribourg, said of the research.

'Although very different at first glance, both these belief systems are associated with a single and powerful cognitive bias named teleological thinking, which entails the perception of final causes and overriding purpose in naturally occurring events and entities.'

'By drawing attention to the analogy between creationism and conspiracism, we hope to highlight one of the major flaws of conspiracy theories and therefore help people detect it, namely that they rely on teleological reasoning by ascribing a final cause and overriding purpose to world events.'
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:34 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:09 pm I think VT is right, this forum needs a vomit emoji.
What's making you so nauseous, Gary?
This forum does have a vomit emoti (for us Christians that drink blood.)

:P
!
!
!
`-__ . .. ....


User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Will Bouwman wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:29 pm
seeds wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:10 pmHowever, we should all be gob smacked at the notion that in the year 2021, a law prohibiting human sacrifice needed to be passed somewhere in the world (good gawd almighty!!!).
It is absolutely gobsmacking, seeds. Having said that, nearly a third of the world's population who are at least nominally Christian believe it is the only route to salvation.
:lol:
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:21 pm
'By drawing attention to the analogy between creationism and conspiracism, we hope to highlight one of the major flaws of conspiracy theories and therefore help people detect it, namely that they rely on teleological reasoning by ascribing a final cause and overriding purpose to world events.'
That's a good point! Purpose, as teleologically defined, is what conspiracy theories rely on for their justification, disrupting the usual flow of logic and reason to manage events. All kinds of absurdities may be believed in when a collective opinion - usually the most simple-minded - ascends to a teleological mandate...especially so when reinforced by a substantial majority. That kind of mutilated teleology is requisite in declaring its own justification independent of any purpose it may have.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

AJ,

In response to your most recent message to me:

Your definition of historical "revisionism" assumes that the "unrevised" history is the perspective held at the time by those who invaded the lands of others. This self-servingly leaves out the perspective of those whose lands were invaded. Can you explain why you preference the one over the other in what you seem to intend as some sort of objectively correct ("unrevised") history?

You further go on to imply that tribal conquests of the lands of other tribes is somehow problematic to my view, suggesting as a resolution to this supposed problem that those like myself could 'say something like "Well, that is internecine struggle"' - but, for me, this is not even a problem in the first place: land theft is simply wrong whoever commits the offence, whether tribe from tribe or European from African.

I'm not especially interested in Marx's supposed influence in this area, because right is right whoever affirms it: in general, it is simply wrong to steal from others that which they legitimately possess (right, hq?).

I had a bit of a read (though incomplete) of the speech by Jonathan Bowden the YT video of which you linked to. I think it's pretty misguided, although there are aspects that seem sane, such as his objection to US warmongering in the Middle East.

He reveals his true colours in his objection to Barack Obama as POTUS on the basis of his race. That's a great segue into this:

You quote me asking you: "Are you brave enough to come out and express [the motivating views of yours to which you only vaguely allude] explicitly?"

You respond: "I believe so."

Only to the extent of referencing the speech of another man, it seems.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

seeds wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:10 pm I guess my point is, don't be so fast to exclude the white race's involvement in the Rwandan tragedy.
Point taken.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:13 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:19 amI do acknowledge the problem that underlies all of this: even if there are objective values, it is up to individual subjects to recognise as much, which they might not, instead mistakenly presenting their own subjective - and objectively false - values as truly objective, and mistakenly doing so zealously and fanatically.

At least, that's how I put it in this context.
But, from my frame of mind, that is still largely a "general description intellectual contraption" assessment. What particular "individual subjects" given what particular set of circumstances, given what particular alleged "objective values"?
As I've repeated multiple times to IC recently, I've sufficiently expressed my arguments for the grounding of objective morality already in my first spate of posting to this forum quite a few years back, so I won't get into it again here with you.
iambiguous wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:13 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 4:19 amI see. It seems to me that based on all of that, your definition or at least understanding of dasein is encapsulated as: "The full context of a human being's existence, which colours that being's perceptions and, more importantly, values".
No, my point is that whatever "here and now" I construe to be the "full context" of my own existence is still embedded in "the gap" between "I" and "all there is". I am still no less an "infinitesimally insignificant speck of existence in the staggering vastness of all there is".
Oh. Well, then, I still don't particularly understand what you mean by "dasein". If you could provide a succinct definitional statement such as mine which you've quoted above, that might help me to better get it.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

it is simply wrong to steal from others that which they legitimately possess (right, hq?).
That's right, hb.
Post Reply