Christianity

[Age]

Imagine a room filled with 100 people

imagine just two

stan recognizes he's free (self-directing, -responsible, -reliant)

stan recognizes lou, the other guy, is also free, and believes lou returns the favor

lou, though, doesn't see stan as free: he sees stan as resource, potential property

stan is willin' to work with lou to meet common goals; he gets that he and lou aren't gonna see eye to eye on many, mebbe even most things, but he knows as long as each recognizes the other as free, then differences can be worked thru

lou, havin' only one goal, will never work with stan, cuz he wants to own him; stan is meat: anything, everything, he does is expressly done with that in mind

simplistic as it is, this scenario describes pretty well the circumstance man has been in since before he fell out of the trees

you want us to broaden; me, I just want you to see

So, WHY are 'you' just like 'lou' "henry quirk"?

Or, are you saying that being like "lou" is the BEST and Right way for human beings to be?

[Age]

You can proceed from the assumption that matter did not created, but has always been, and will always be.
At this stage, scientists cannot prove it unequivocally, but they cannot refute it unequivocally either.

I honestly don't know what you would be able to point to in order to contest it.

I have already pointed out that in the big bang theory there is no creation out of nothing. Existing matter explodes. And if there is matter, then there is regularity to which it obeys.

So, does this then mean that 'matter', and 'space/distance' between or around 'matter', has existed eternally?

If no, then what does what you said here mean?

As for mathematics, as I have already said, there is no time parameter in it at all.
On the account of the "heat death of the universe", I, too, have already indicated that there is a scientific refutation of it. There is no definite proof that it will be, and there is no definite proof that it will not.

But there is ACTUALLY DEFINITIVE PROOF that there is NO "death of the Universe".

"Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition." Etc

But unfortunately, you did not understand the main thing in my words, but about the uncaused cause.

[Age]

I honestly don't know what you would be able to point to in order to contest it.

I have already pointed out that in the big bang theory there is no creation out of nothing. Existing matter explodes.

But you've missed the problem in your own explanation. Is that "existing matter" a product of cause and effect, or not?

Are you making a statement or asking a question here?

If it is, then the chain of cause and effect continues...and cannot be regressively eternal, because such a chain can never start, having no starting point.

OF COURSE it can NOT start. That is the WHOLE POINT. And, the VERY REASON WHY thee Universe, Itself, LITERALLY, has NO start, and has NOT ended.

If it is not, then you have to imagine that the "existing matter" is itself eternal.

OF COURSE it IS. Just like 'existing matter' NOW is itself eternal.

'Existing matter' IS ALWAYS in Existence. It, however, is just ALWAYS in different shape AND form.

But we can see, empirically, that matter is not eternal.

No we do NOT see this.

And, you ONLY "see this" because you have an underlying BELIEF that some God thing created/began the Universe.

Is it your DISTORTED and Wrong BELIEF WHY you ARE SO CONFUSED and WHY you are desperately 'TRYING' SO HARD to put ALL-OF-THIS together is some logical and irrefutable form. But, because you have been MISLED and MISGUIDED for SO LONG, you do NOT want to LET GO of those BELIEFS that are HOLDING you BACK

It declines from ordered states into less ordered states, and eventually into an equal soup of energy particles...which is what is meant by "heat death."

Which ALSO MEANS those 'particles' are just, ONCE AGAIN, the 'existing matter' just in ANOTHER shape and form.

And empirically, and all things remaining as they are, all the matter in the universe will end up in heat death in approximately 1-100 trillion years...long after the Earth itself has ceased to exist.

'you', human beings, do NOT even KNOW what the weather will be doing TOMORROW, accurately, let alone KNOWING what will happen in, APPROXIMATELY, 1-100 trillion years from when this is being written.

'you', can NOT even agree on what happened on September 11 just, approximately, 20 years EARLIER, and that is even with HINDSIGHT, and with the ability of cameras to capture the ACTUAL EVENT, let alone be able to agree on what WILL happen in the FUTURE.

So, if you REALLY BELIEVE that 'you' KNOW, for sure, what WILL HAPPEN here, then so be it.

But unless something incredibly powerful and different from anything else we know in the material world, something that has not yet intervened intervenes, that's where it's all going.

Is this an ASSUMPTION of 'yours', "immanuel can"? Or, is this an IRREFUTABLE Fact?

As for mathematics, as I have already said, there is no time parameter in it at all.

You've mistaken the case: there is no such problem. Mathematics can be used to describe time,

In the days when this is being written, 'you', human beings, can NOT even agree on what 'time' is, EXACTLY. So, what you CLAIM here is just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. And, the MOST WISE of 'you' will readily ADMIT that 'you' do NOT KNOW and UNDERSTAND what 'time' is, EXACTLY, YET.

but mathematics is not time-dependent itself. Yesterday, 2 was 2. Today, a 2 is a 2. Tomorrow, 2 will still be 2.

A '2' is ONLY a 2 BECAUSE 'you', human beings, came up with and thus made that symbol. Which means that tomorrow 'you' could CHANGE '2' to MEAN some thing else and/or even ANY thing else. And this is IRREFUTABLY True because 'you' are ABSOLUTELY FREE to do ABSOLUTELY ANY thing you so please.

Mathematics has an adjectival relation to matter. It is not itself "matter." It describes the quantity of a given entity.

[Age]

Okay. So? What's your point?

What do you think I don't see, Henry?

I think you're so caught up in broadening and detaching you don't see that most folks do quite well cooperatin' (even when they have radically different views).

When you say, "most folks do quite well cooperating", do you LOOK AT and CONSIDER ALL of the wars 'you', human beings, HAVE among "yourselves"?

Do 'you' LOOK AT and CONSIDER that even 'you', "henry quirk", would just SHOOT DEAD ANOTHER human being just because they are standing in your home, in the early morning hours, or if they just TOUCHED your tooth pick?

And if you did LOOK AT and CONSIDER these things, then do you REALLY CONSIDER these to be forms of " most folks cooperating with "each other" "?

I think you don't see the essential problem (which isn't narrow perspective or attachment to specific notions) is -- as I've said 5000 times (by your count) -- the *perpetual conflict between free men and (and I hate to say it cuz it rankles so many) slavers.

But there are NO Truly FREE human beings, in the days when this is being written, AND EVERY one of 'you', adult human beings, in those days were SLAVERS. Which, VERY MUCH, includes 'YOU', "henry quirk".

And part of the ESSENTIAL and CENTRAL ISSUE here is that 'you', "henry quirk", just like EVERY other adult human being, DOES HAVE a VERY NARROWED and SHORT-SIGHTED view of things. And, to such an extent that when your views become SO NARROWED and SO SHORT-SIGHTED, just like "henry quirk's" and "lacewing's" are here, then they become BELIEFS, which is EXACTLY WHAT CLOSED 'you', human beings, OFF to being ABLE TO SEE what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct.

You focus on all the wrong divisions (which aren't divisions at all but only differences) and ignore the one true division.

And, "henry quirk", focus on ONLY One division, ONLY, and so is, literally, BLIND to ALL of the OTHER divisions, one of which "lacewing" is SO Rightly POINTING OUT and REVEALING here.

Frankly, I think Alexis does the same thing. He's lookin' for the tap root, but, thru at least part of his conversations with Mannie and you, keeps settlin' for the subsidiaries.




*which is part of a deeper, larger conflict (good vs evil, or [if you prefer] life vs death or even negentropy vs entropy)

[Age]

I have already pointed out that in the big bang theory there is no creation out of nothing. Existing matter explodes.

by "heat death."

I just now gave you a link about the scientific refutation of the "heat death of the universe". Can you read my answer before answering?

There is no single causal chain in nature. There is a regularity of nature, which exists if there is matter.

And, 'matter', just like 'energy', ALWAYS EXISTS.

There is no scientific refutation of the eternity of matter.

And there NEVER could be. This is because eternity of matter is an ALREADY PROVED Fact, and so IS IRREFUTABLE, forever more.

If you are aware of such a rebuttal, please provide a link to a scientific rebuttal (not fantasy).

NONE exists. So, they could NOT.

"Yesterday" - is not mathematics, it is physics that can use mathematics.
There is no in physics, which uses the mathematics of the impossibility of eternity.

[Age]

by "heat death."

I just now gave you a link about the scientific refutation of the "heat death of the universe".

You misunderstand. "Heat death" isn't the problem with your theory.

Mathematics is.

There is no such thing as an infinite regression of prerequisites.

What do you MEAN by; "There is NO such 'thing' as an infinite regression of prerequisites"?

OF COURSE there IS a 'prerequisite' for ANY and EVERY thing to 'come about'. Or, do you REALLY BELIEVE that 'things' just come into Existence 'magically'?

If you understand that simple point, then it's that you have to have an answer for.

If you can NOT YET understand that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing HAS TO COME FROM at least two other things coming together in order to be able to create some thing, in the beginning, then it is you, who is Truly CONFUSED.

Let's focus on what matters to the argument, not that which is secondary or tangential to it.

Let us ADMIRE just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN these human beings, back in those days, will 'try to' change focus when they are FAILING in their ATTEMPTS to back up and support their CLAIMS and BELIEFS.

There is no scientific refutation of the eternity of matter.

Yes, there is. I gave it to you. But you ignored it. So I can't beat that strategy.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that "immanuel can" ACTUALLY BELIEFS that its OWN BELIEFS and knowledge OUTWEIGHS the WHOLE scientific community.

If there is NO scientific refutation of the eternity of matter, then, plain and simple, there is NO scientific refutation of the eternity of matter.

There is, by the way, in the days when this was being written, NO scientific refutation of the eternity of matter. What there is, however, some people who and say and CLAIM that thee Universe, Itself, BEGAN from a "big bang" or from a God. And, ALL of these people hold some DISTORTED view or BELIEF that these BELIEFS can be back up 'scientifically'. Which it Truly IS as RIDICULOUS as this SOUNDS and APPEARS here.

What you ACTUAL gave 'us', readers, here was a ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of how 'you', human beings, would 'try to' say just about ANY thing in order to 'try to' back up and support your currently held views or BELIEFS.

If you want to now CLAIM that you had ALREADY gave 'us' scientific refutation of the eternity of matter, then your CHOICE NOT to INFORM 'us' of WHERE, EXACTLY, you SUPPOSEDLY did this, will be enough PROOF for 'us' to decide that you NEVER actually did.

[Age]

There is no such thing as an infinite regression of prerequisites.

Give proof that an infinite regression of prerequisites is not possible.

Easy. So easy.

Here's an experiment demonstrating it.

Get yourself a piece of paper.

On it, write "0"

But before you write "0", this experiment requires you first have to have already written "-1."

But before you write "-1", you have to already have written "-2".

And before that, you already have to have written "-3", "-4", "-5," and so on, back to infinity.

That models an infinite regress of causes, because each integer is a prerequisite for the next one, just like each cause in an infinite regress is the prerequisite of the effect associated with it.

So just sit down with some paper, and try to do it.

And then respond as soon as you've managed to write "0," or when you realize the truth: that there will never come a point when you can write even a single integer, let alone reach the "0" point (i.e. the present).

And just as you can never start writing, so too a universe can never begin if it requires an infinite chain of causes.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Comparing 'you', human beings, to thee Universe, Itself, is an ABSOLUTE JOKE, and would be nearly inconceivable if it was not for just how egotistical 'you', adult human beings, REALLY WERE, in the days when this was being written.

LOOK, just because 'you', human beings, are NOT eternal, and therefore could NEVER do what you just said to do here, does in NO WAY, and I will repeat does in NO WAY, even infer that thee Universe, Itself, is not eternal, let alone, and laughably PROVE, scientifically or not, that thee Universe, Itself, is NOT eternal.

And to ASSUME or BELIEVE that experiment would PROVE such a thing is just LUDICROUS and ABSURD to the EXTREME.

Yes, there is. I gave it to you. But you ignored it.

Provide a link proving ("heat death of the universe" is not proven).

As I said, you can, if you wish, try to ignore what scientists say about heat death. It won't change the problem. So there's nothing won or lost on the question of heat death. So let's not waste our time on things not required for the objection to hold.

The Universe, Itself, is eternal AND infinite. This IS an ALREADY PROVED, and IRREFUTABLE, Fact. Therefore, there IS and WAS NO 'death' of thee Universe, Itself.

[Age]

Here's an experiment demonstrating it.

Get yourself a piece of paper.

On it, write "0"

But before you write "0", this experiment requires you first have to have already written "-1."

But before you write "-1", you have to already have written "-2".

And before that, you already have to have written "-3", "-4", "-5," and so on, back to infinity.

That models an infinite regress of causes, because each integer is a prerequisite for the next one, just like each cause in an infinite regress is the prerequisite of the effect associated with it.

So just sit down with some paper, and try to do it.

And then respond as soon as you've managed to write "0," or when you realize the truth: that there will never come a point when you can write even a single integer, let alone reach the "0" point (i.e. the present).

And just as you can never start writing, so too a universe can never begin if it requires an infinite chain of causes.

What are 'you' thumbing up here "henry quirk"?

Are 'you' ALSO under some ILLUSION that because 'you', human beings, begin, AND DIE, therefore thee Universe MUST ALSO?

REALLY, HOW egotistical would a species have to have become that it ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' could compare itself to thee Universe, Itself?

[Janoah]

And just as you can never start writing, so too a universe can never begin if it requires an infinite chain of causes.

So the fact of the matter is that the material world never began, but always was.

As I said, you can, if you wish, try to ignore what scientists say about heat death. It won't change the problem. So there's nothing won or lost on the question of heat death. So let's not waste our time on things not required for the objection to hold.

I saw your message about the "heat death of the universe", and gave you a link that this hypothesis has not been proven.
"Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition." Etc

[Alexis Jacobi]

This may surprise you, but so is mine.

I don't think for an instant there's ever been such a thing as "a Christian nation," and I don't for a second suppose we're going to create one now. It's actually an absurd expression. The term "Christian nation" makes as much sense as (to borrow a quip from EC) "accountancy dancing." So one thing for sure: I'm not arguing in favour of such a ridiculous and contradictory idea...never mind that the means to bring it about would be likely to be authoritarian. No part of that appeals to me as "Christian."

But the difference between your current thinking and mine, it seems to me, keys on whether a nominal or pseudo-Christian cultural renassiance is a viable alternative, and can be looked to to save the culture. It appears to me you think it might be; but I think that's an utterly doomed hope.

In some sense you are bolstering the point I want to make. This is how I describe culture -- Christian culture if you will. The Christian ideal has not ever been achieved, and indeed it cannot be achieved on any wide-scale. As you say there can be Christian individuals, and it is possible that their influence does or can act positively on or perhaps against the pseudo-Christian or quasi-Christian matrix. So far so good.

But since the largest weight of your argument is through the understanding 'My Kingdom is not of this world", in essence your moral activity will take shape as a preparation for 'life beyond this life'. I regard that as a highly, if not intensely, problematic ideal. Effectively, according to the structure of your views and the 'praxis' suggested, there cannot ever be a 'Christian culture' and any attempt to create one, and to approximate one, is according to you a useless endeavor. Therefore in a sense you encourage a pessimism and in this sense a hopelessness. Since nothing really can be built here, and in any case it will only amount to approximations, the Christian you define places all hopes in a 'world to come'.

People do not really live in that way. It is in fact an impossibility. We always live, and cannot but live, with our eyes and our focus on the *real* events of this world. So it seems to me that our relationship to that *real world* is the principle area of necessary focus. Not in a 'world beyond' except as a hope.

Well, that's because all the above are mere collectives. It's only the individual who has a soul, or who can respond to moral imperatives, or to any vision of things as they do not now exist. Institutions, nations and states, along with "conglomerations" are not personal agents, and have no eyes, ears or consciences of their own at all. They are pushed around by "powers," but the forces of circumstance, or finances, or contingencies...with no ability, as collectives, to do anything at all about that.

I agree in principle. But even if all this is true nevertheless people function in and through these conglomerations.

In contrast, if I may suppose, I think you're putting a rather strong emphasis on things like the power of nominal "Christians," pseudo-Christians, "christianesque" individuals, and so on, to contribute to the situation. And yes, there have been a lot of them around throughout what we call "Christian-civilizational history" (which is itself another fiction, really). But they are the most useless of all human beings, in truth; and were always more of a problem to real Christianity than any kind of asset. They have always been, themselves, only moral and good according to the measure by which they have sometimes being absorbing the influence coming from genuine Christianity. Take that genuine Christianity out of the culture, and the pseudos and nominalists will be the most useless, uninfluential citizens you could possibly have, since they have no real or durable commitment to any principles at all.

I think my attitude is realistic. In this sense I must regard myself as christianesque since I view life in this contingent, mutable plane as the constraining factor, the limiting factor. An idea Christian exists as an ideal and, only in the case of (perhaps) saints and a few notable individuals has or can the ideal of Christianity be realized.

So for anyone who participates in 'building projects' in this world ethical and moral compromises will have to be made. And when one does that one displays 'christianesqueness'.

The more involved in the world, the more that one deviates from the abstract ideal.

In this sense, it seems to me, the Christian must continually ask for forgiveness for the sins that are inevitably committed. For this reason the constantly absolution of Catholicism is a notion that makes sense. One will never achieve the Christian ideal until one is freed from the limits and constraints of incarnated life. And it is not possible to lead a blameless, sin-free life.

There's nothing "organic" about a "state." It's an abstraction, a collective, impersonal. We must not draw a false analogy between the state and the "imperative" of an organism for survival. States come and states go.

Except that states function through their need, appetite, assertion of power, etc. Someone said "England has no friends it has interests".

My references to the US were made with this in mind: The US has and manages an empire of far-flung interests. The ideals of the US cannot operate in such a situation of global ownership. But this power and control and ownership is as real as anything else.

The question is how this is seen and ethically and morally resolved. It is 'the problem of power' in the Thracymachus sense. It is as real now as ever.

Karma is a problematic idea. Let's not invoke it here. It requires us to believe that the indifferent universe has some interest in balancing scales throughout reincarnation cycles. That's too much nonsense to swallow, I think.

I do not see it quite like that. Karma is another perceeptual means of seeing and understanding the consequences of the insoluble problem of incarnated, biological life. The Vaishnavas of India (worshippers of Vishnu of the Bhagavad-Gita) refer to our incarnated life as 'the material entanglement'. Once entangled every action that is taken can result in incurring a karmic debt that will further entangle one. It is a logical and indeed a sensible view, it seems to me.

One can be going happily along and be presented with a circumstances -- as if by chance -- that will involve one in actions that incur *karma*. And karmic debt has to be paid or has to be annulled somehow and at some point (according to the logic in this view).

Don't forget Nietzsche's first and most famous axiom, though: "God is dead." This is an axiom Nietzsche neither proved nor even bothered to try to prove; he just claimed everybody already knew it or should know it, and moved on.

As I said before I do not think this can be understood unless it is understood as an array of ironies. Whatever 'God' is when one has performed the infinite regress and identified a causeless, transcendental power out of which creation comes, that is an open question. Those that work within the notion of 'intelligent design' point out that the design they observe must have a transcendental origin, but no part of this necessarily bolsters the Christian view of what God is, or what God is not.

In this sense then to say *God has died* is to make an ironic statement that a god-concept has died. And effectively that god-concept certainly did die.

So it seems to me that the notion of God must be re-described and re-written. In any case this is what Nietzsche seemed to realize.

Right. No wonder, then, that Christ insisted, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Well there you have it. Certainly not of this world and impossible in this world. If this is so it leaves *the world* to its own devices. Therefore, how can you (we) expect anyone to hold to the Christian ideal if in fact they seek to live life here?

You either live a life here, or you resolve to live a life somewhere else -- this is the terrible contradiction of the Christian ethic, unless it becomes christianesque!

Yes and no. War always produces both huge losses and significant gains. For example, it kills millions, perhaps, but causes the economy to be run very austerely and stingily, and thus often produces a post-war economic "boom."

My concerns and interests about this extend beyond the topic of this thread. I am interested in understanding the *unraveling of the United States* as a result of a series of extremely bad wars. That is, wars that cannot be justified ethically and morally. In this sense *the chickens have come home to roost* now and social madness rears up, but very few seem to be making this causal connection.

Karma is a way to see and define that connection. Not so much a general sinfulness but sinful activities of real consequence, brought about by *conglomerations of interests*, that empower a karmic hammer that comes down, surely and inevitably.

[henry quirk]

What are 'you' thumbing up here "henry quirk"?

videodrome

or, mebbe, your mother

So, WHY are 'you' just like 'lou' "henry quirk"?

and why are you like a defective toaster?

[simplicity]

Christianity
Britain used to refer to itself as a Christian country.
There seems to be little agreement as to what we are today.

A country cannot be Christian. Only an individual can be Christian.

This might answer your question.

[Lacewing]

I think you're so caught up in broadening and detaching you don't see that most folks do quite well cooperatin' (even when they have radically different views).

Not only is that a projection of your own making, it makes no sense.

I think you don't see the essential problem (which isn't narrow perspective or attachment to specific notions) is -- as I've said 5000 times (by your count) -- the *perpetual conflict between free men and (and I hate to say it cuz it rankles so many) slavers.

Ah, so Henry Quirk knows the ESSENTIAL PROBLEM. Let's all gather round and listen to 'Henry's Story Time'. What Henry thinks is the way IT IS!!

You focus on all the wrong divisions (which aren't divisions at all but only differences) and ignore the one true division.

What are you talking about? What exactly do you think I'm focusing on, and what do you think I'm ignoring?

Frankly, I think Alexis does the same thing.

You don't even have it right in regard to me, yet you suggest that Alexis is doing the same thing?

What are you imagining, Henry? And an even more interesting question is: why are you imagining that?

[henry quirk]

Hey, you asked...

What do you think I don't see, Henry?

...I answered. if you don't like, agree with, or understand my answer: that ain't my problem.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

This may surprise you, but so is mine.

I don't think for an instant there's ever been such a thing as "a Christian nation," and I don't for a second suppose we're going to create one now.

There was a very close unity between Christianity and secular power in the late middle ages in Europe west of Constantinople.

Nope. Catholicism. (And in Constantinople, Eastern Orthodoxy, of course.)

The papacy

Catholic.

It's even a joke:

Person A: "Did Joe Biden cheat in the election?"

Person B: "Is the Pope Catholic?"

Comparing religious sects is interesting and you may like to start a new discussion so we can all compare the relative merits of different religious sects.