Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pmIt does seem true "that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true" if truth is determined by our own decision, or whimsy. Yet I think that most all of us would, if pressed, actually present some pretty defined and solid notion of *the true* -- when we have made a careful analysis of what we have learned in living life.
Yes, what we learn in life are the experiences true for us, i.e., as we interpret them. It’s certainly true others may interpret it differently, perhaps even more objectively. Truth has always been the easiest label to apply to whatever seems the most expedient, endorsing what it refers to as necessity instead of an act of will. There is a huge difference between something being true and Truth per se.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pmMy sense of it, when Lacewing speaks of there always being something more beyond any specific concretization of values or principles, is that she does not elucidate some actionable content, but proposes a somewhat abstract idea, as a challenge to those who work within defined systems. So when she says (or if you were to say) that we should explore the possible and put aside trying to define what is true, I did not take it that she is not interested in what is true, but simply desires to have more open possibilities before her.
Life is not a sequence of established priorities in terms of what is true or not. In that respect, her statement...

What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?

...is very much an organic expression of life’s usual dynamic. Nature has never danced to any Truth waltz.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pmSince your position is one where you expose and confront the "plethora of highly rationalized indoctrinated lies" you have your work before you.
Not really! History has already done that work in creating a chronology of both intentional lies and involuntary errors.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pmI think your view and your critique must have an 'active' side, a propositional side. If so what is it?
Honestly, I have no idea what you’re asking for regarding an “active or propositional” side!
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dubious wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:09 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pm
What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?
This to me is -- permit me the honesty -- an absurdly premised statement. If something is not *true* it should not become the foundation for the structures we build.
I didn't expect to come back but can't help replying to this.

The quote made by Lacewing, I believe, is perfectly true in the sense that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true. It remains an entry within an index of probabilities. Bayesian logic works on much the same principle. A lie can easily appear true if given credence century after century, tantamount to a lie creating a history for itself. What may change are its interpretations yet nevertheless remain true within its context. In effect, it's the lie which created the truth of Christianity. As a controlling millennial structure, it amounts to a historical fact established on a plethora of highly rationalized indoctrinated lies.
But the 'lies' might not be intentional at all. Like, for example, the words 'In the beginning', was NOT 'a lie' AT ALL, but those words have to led MANY "religious" people to BELIEVE, and to CLAIM, it is a "fact" that, "There was a beginning, which was created by God", and to MANY "scientific" people to BELIEVE, and to CLAIM, it is a "fact" that, "There was a beginning, which was created by a Big Bang".

So, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that "each truth" is RELATIVE to what one BELIEVES to be true.

So, a 'lie' ONLY easily appears true to those who BELIEVE the 'lie' to be true. But, OBVIOUSLY, 'it' would NOT be a 'lie' to those who BELIEVE 'it' to be true. And, to find out if a 'lie', or a 'truth', is ACTUALLY either a 'lie' or a 'truth', to begin one needs to be ABLE to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' CLEARLY.

The words, 'in the beginning', may have NEVER intended to be a 'lie', which over the centuries has spread to become opposing "truths", (which are both just actually Falsehoods, by the way), the words, 'in the beginning', for all of these centuries have just been MISINTERPRETED, which is what thee ACTUAL 'thing' IS that has led to and caused the Wrongly PERCEIVED "truths".

There is NOT ACTUAL Fact absolutely ANYWHERE that there was 'a beginning' to the Universe, Itself, but there are PLENTY of human beings who STILL BELIEVE that there was, even after centuries of inquiries that have led to absolute NO PROOF AT ALL.

The "historical fact" that the Universe began, (and is expanding), is established on a plethora of highly PERCEIVE "rationalized indoctrinated lies". And all of these 'lies' were established on the BELIEF or ASSUMPTION that there 'was a beginning' because it was once written, "In the beginning".

Oh, and by the way, the words, 'In the beginning', just refers to what is happening and occurring HERE-NOW, which IS; 'In the beginning', or just 'The beginning' for what is to come. Which WILL make PERFECT SENSE when 'you' LOOK AT 'things' from a WHOLE DIFFERENT and OTHER perspective.
Dubious wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:09 pm If, as you say, If something is not *true* it should not become the foundation for the structures we build - or at least has no truth prerogative, imagine how many structures would never have existed.
And this is WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER to LOOK AT 'things' from 'The beginning'.

"scientists" can be the worst offenders for this, "But 'this' MUST BE TRUE because the foundations on which 'this' is built are all true also". But, what they FAIL to RECOGNIZE and DO is to ACTUALLY CLARIFY if, from the beginning, ALL of those OTHER CLAIMS are ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct.
Dubious wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:09 pm If humans had established and supervised themselves purely on what is true, there would have been no accomplishments of any kind, including the good, the bad and all the ugly it entailed.
WHY do you SAY and CLAIM this?

If human beings had established and supervised themselves purely on what is true, then WHY would they have, supposedly, NOT then MADE ANY accomplishments, of ANY kind?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pm
Dubious wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:09 pmThe quote made by Lacewing, I believe, is perfectly true in the sense that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true. It remains an entry within an index of probabilities. Bayesian logic works on much the same principle. A lie can easily appear true if given credence century after century, tantamount to a lie creating a history for itself. What may change are its interpretations yet nevertheless remain true within its context. In effect, it's the lie which created the truth of Christianity. As a controlling millennial structure, it amounts to a historical fact established on a plethora of highly rationalized indoctrinated lies.
It does seem true "that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true" if truth is determined by our own decision, or whimsy. Yet I think that most all of us would, if pressed, actually present some pretty defined and solid notion of *the true* -- when we have made a careful analysis of what we have learned in living life.
Would you be prepared to be CHALLENGED on this?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pm My sense of it, when Lacewing speaks of there always being something more beyond any specific concretization of values or principles, is that she does not elucidate some actionable content, but proposes a somewhat abstract idea, as a challenge to those who work within defined systems.
There OBVIOUSLY can NOT be 'more' nor 'beyond' to what IS ACTUALLY and FULLY True.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pm So when she says (or if you were to say) that we should explore the possible and put aside trying to define what is true, I did not take it that she is not interested in what is true, but simply desires to have more open possibilities before her.
All one has to do to have MORE OPEN POSSIBILITIES before them is just NOT BECOME CLOSED. And, one is only CLOSED when they ASSUME or BELIEVE some 'thing' to be true, ALREADY.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pm Since your position is one where you expose and confront the "plethora of highly rationalized indoctrinated lies" you have your work before you. I admit that based on some of your other assertions I have no idea to what project this will lead you (something related to the non-dualism you refer to?)

I think your view and your critique must have an 'active' side, a propositional side. If so what is it?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:08 am
Age wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:02 am 'you', "immanuel can",
Irrelevant. What I am, for better or worse, will not help you.
In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

And let us NOT FORGET that you have NOT YET countered absolutely ANY thing I have SAID and WRITTEN here, and, you have NOT YET backed up NOR supported absolutely ANY thing you have CLAIMED here.

I do NOT need ANY help here.

'you' ARE PROVING what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING absolutely and IRREFUTABLY True ALREADY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:08 am This is your problem.
'What', EXACTLY, is SUPPOSEDLY, "my problem".

LOOK, I just could ask you to TELL US what is 'a problem', EXACTLY, and you would FAIL in that, ALSO COMPLETELY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:08 am You own it, alone.
Own 'what', EXACTLY?

We are STILL YET to establish what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are going on about here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:08 am Either you fix yourself, or you don't.
Either you TELL US 'what', EXACTLY, NEEDS, supposedly, "fixing", AND TELL US 'how' to "fix" 'it' or you are, literally, SAYING absolutely NOTHING AT ALL here.

LOOK, 'you', "immanuel can", could NOT even EXPLAIN what "yourself" IS, EXACTLY. Let alone TALKING ABOUT "fixing yourself" in ANY sufficient way AT ALL
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:08 am But if you don't, then you'll get the same reaction you've always gotten from everybody.
ONCE AGAIN, MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIMS about "everybody". REALLY you can NOT be that STUPID to STILL NOT YET SEE CLEARLY just how ABSURD and RIDICULOUS some of these CLAIMS ACTUALLY ARE, correct?

Oh, and by the way, 'what', EXACTLY are this "SAME reaction that I have ALWAYS gotten from EVERY body".

And, if you STILL have NOT YET NOTICED there were THREE ACTUAL WORDS in just that one little sentence of yours here, which PROVES that YOUR CLAIM is AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY, and so just ANOTHER ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIM of yours.

And, AGAIN, one that you could NEVER back up and support. Even if you WANTED TO.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:08 am That's just how life works.
This is getting MORE and MORE absurd as you go along.

Besides the Fact that this is ALL just ANOTHER ATTEMPT at DISTRACTION, which OBVIOUSLY NEVER WORKS for you, with me, you have, literally, done NOTHING MORE here than just MADE MORE CLAIMS, which, AGAIN, you will NEVER (be able to) back up NOR support.

FACE IT "immanuel can" you have FAILED COMPLETELY on just about EVERY discussion, with me.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:58 am
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pmIt does seem true "that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true" if truth is determined by our own decision, or whimsy. Yet I think that most all of us would, if pressed, actually present some pretty defined and solid notion of *the true* -- when we have made a careful analysis of what we have learned in living life.
Yes, what we learn in life are the experiences true for us, i.e., as we interpret them. It’s certainly true others may interpret it differently, perhaps even more objectively. Truth has always been the easiest label to apply to whatever seems the most expedient, endorsing what it refers to as necessity instead of an act of will. There is a huge difference between something being true and Truth per se.
VERY True, ACTUALLY.
Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:58 am
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pmMy sense of it, when Lacewing speaks of there always being something more beyond any specific concretization of values or principles, is that she does not elucidate some actionable content, but proposes a somewhat abstract idea, as a challenge to those who work within defined systems. So when she says (or if you were to say) that we should explore the possible and put aside trying to define what is true, I did not take it that she is not interested in what is true, but simply desires to have more open possibilities before her.
Life is not a sequence of established priorities in terms of what is true or not. In that respect, her statement...

What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?

...is very much an organic expression of life’s usual dynamic. Nature has never danced to any Truth waltz.
Although "lacewing" at times 'tries to' to CLAIM that 'Nature' dances the way "lacewing" wants 'It' to dance.

Contrary to what "lacewing" BELIEVES is 'true' there is NOTHING 'more' NOR 'beyond' 'Nature', Itself. And, there is also NOTHING 'more' NOR 'beyond' ACTUAL Facts, which ARE IRREFUTABLE by the way.
Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:58 am
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pmSince your position is one where you expose and confront the "plethora of highly rationalized indoctrinated lies" you have your work before you.
Not really! History has already done that work in creating a chronology of both intentional lies and involuntary errors.
And, I would suggest one does NOT take the 'position' of adding ANYMORE to ANY of them.
Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:58 am
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pmI think your view and your critique must have an 'active' side, a propositional side. If so what is it?
Honestly, I have no idea what you’re asking for regarding an “active or propositional” side!
"alexis jacobi" is 'trying to' make the CLAIM that what 'it' is DOING is FAR BETTER than what 'you' SAID and which 'it' ASSUMED you were planning to DO.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:17 amREALLY, HOW MANY TIMES do 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, have to be TOLD some 'thing' BEFORE 'you' can GRASP 'it', COMPREHEND 'it', and UNDERSTAND 'it'? I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing.
Then if that is true, then what other people say to you cannot be believed or disbelieved at all. So there would be no point in you ever having a discussion for the discussion would be just as it is manifesting, it would be open and straight from the horses mouth, there would be no requirement to question it or ask for clarification. And is why nobody hardly responds to you, because you make absolutely no sense whatsoever when you posit your idea that you niether believe or disbelieve anything which would mean people could say absolutely anything they wanted to you, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing to you.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:08 am
Age wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:02 am 'you', "immanuel can",
Irrelevant. What I am, for better or worse, will not help you.
In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Your inability to participate meaningfully in this forum, and, I would guess, the persistent difficulties you have in all social interactions. Those are things that are your own issues...they have nothing to do with me, be I whatever. I could be amazing or awful...neither will make you better. You need to remedy your own communication style.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:58 am Yes, what we learn in life are the experiences true for us, i.e., as we interpret them. It’s certainly true others may interpret it differently, perhaps even more objectively. Truth has always been the easiest label to apply to whatever seems the most expedient, endorsing what it refers to as necessity instead of an act of will. There is a huge difference between something being true and Truth per se.
One way to approach this question, which seems an important one for you, is to examine those things, or those areas, where the *truth* of something is not and cannot be in any doubt. You could list thousands of them and you would question the perception, and perhaps the motive, of someone who argued against your truth-facts.

I could not argue against you when, as I believe you are trying to indicate, the issue in question moves into a far more subjective territory. I was thinking about the issue of truth, of what is true, when I thought of the message in Macbeth and again in Othello. I assume you have read both. We know, beyond doubt, that the play of Macbeth is invented through-and-through and we might measure someone's ability to grasp what is true from what is false to the degree that they, too, agreed with us.

Yet it is I would say *undeniable* that the meanings so pertinent to truth and which express truth, weave in and out of what is represented in the play. So then how do we talk about those *truths*? What happened to this man Macbeth? Why does it make so much sense to us how he was destroyed -- led to destruction and then involved directly in choices that resulted in destruction?

Or what about the issue of what is true and what is a lie when one considers Othello's falling into the lie-traps that Iago set for him? That is, Iago's consciously-concocted lies with which he infected the mind and spirit of Othello? What would have been the *antidote* to the poisons that Iago injected into Othello's mind? More lies? Or truth?

Do these pictures, or these representations, have applicability for you and I? If we were to sit down and talk about these things, and find the correspondences in our won lives, would we agree or would we disagree that there are 'truths' of this order? (I bank on the fact that we would agree).

So can you really say that in considering these matters that the interpretations that are made are merely inventions laid over 'reality'? That someone else would come along and look *objectively* at both these situations and see something, and say something, about each that would cause us to fundamentally alter our grasp of the truth?
Truth has always been the easiest label to apply to whatever seems the most expedient, endorsing what it refers to as necessity instead of an act of will. There is a huge difference between something being true and Truth per se.
Well, when you put it this way I think I can agree with you at least generally. There is a large difference between a mere truth-fact and Truth in the larger sense -- and in my examples that of what we see and take away from both Macbeth and Othello.

The closer someone -- Shakespeare in this case -- pins down a Truth and perhaps I can say understands the difference between truth and falsity, as well as the consequence of a lie, the more likely it is that the truth revealed, if it is revealed, will seem constant, even eternal, and in this sense as a Truth of the sort we are referring to.
Honestly, I have no idea what you’re asking for regarding an “active or propositional” side!
It is not so hard to grasp. I make the suggestion that what you are saying, what you are trying to present, must have an *active* side or aspect. What are you attempting when you make the declarations you do? What result do you desire? I would ask this of Lacewing as well.

In your case, and I cannot be sure why this seems so, I think the core of what you wish to present remains shadowed or obscured. It occurs to me that you may not even be al that clear about what your *intentions* are. Yet you are active in your assertions and I do not think it could be fairly said that your activity has no desired result. What do you have in mind? What am I to take away from your assertions? What are you up to?

I think it reveals something that you say "I have no idea" what I am asking you. Is the question a bad one? Does your answer mean you are asleep in some sense? Unaware of the *active* aspect you your own propositions? What do you think?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:58 am What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?

...is very much an organic expression of life’s usual dynamic. Nature has never danced to any Truth waltz.
Wait, this brings into question why it is that either of you, and you in this case, even bother to engage. *You* are not 'Nature'. And you are, right now, performing and enacting a Truth Waltz when you make decided declarations; when you question some assertion about what is true (and what must necessarily be false).

When you bring up "life’s usual dynamic" you do not seem to be talking about yourself!

So what are you talking about?

How would you be able to broach the topic of 'the possible' if it did not also involve your own grasp of what is true? Do you propose that you are some sort of kaleidoscope? That everything you look at is made to appear 'an infinity of patterns'? It is an odd assertion and it seems that (if this were so) you contradict yourself.
Nature has never danced to any Truth waltz.
Oh yeah? 😂
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi to Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm I make the suggestion that what you are saying, what you are trying to present, must have an *active* side or aspect. What are you attempting when you make the declarations you do? What result do you desire? I would ask this of Lacewing as well.
My aim is simply towards having clarity and seeing more broadly.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:52 am
Age wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:17 amREALLY, HOW MANY TIMES do 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, have to be TOLD some 'thing' BEFORE 'you' can GRASP 'it', COMPREHEND 'it', and UNDERSTAND 'it'? I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing.
Then if that is true,
What do you mean by the 'if' word here?

You do NOT have one solitary, single shred of evidence to the contrary, let alone ANY ACTUAL PROOF AT ALL, YET you STILL use the 'if' word.

REALLY, HOW MANY TIMES do 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, have to be TOLD some 'thing' BEFORE 'you' can GRASP 'it', COMPREHEND 'it', and UNDERSTAND 'it'?
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:52 am then what other people say to you cannot be believed or disbelieved at all.
But 'it' CAN.

I just CHOOSE NOT TO. Because if I DID, then I would NOT be Truly OPEN ANYMORE.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:52 am So there would be no point in you ever having a discussion for the discussion would be just as it is manifesting, it would be open and straight from the horses mouth, there would be no requirement to question it or ask for clarification.
Well that is OBVIOUSLY CONTRARY to what ACTUALLY HAPPENS and OCCURS, pretty well consistently in my discussions and what I get CALLED OUT on continuously for. I am continually QUESTIONING what is said and continually seeking CLARITY.

Just because I neither believe nor disbelieve what is told to me, this in NO WAY means that I am NOT curious. And, it is because I am, OBVIOUSLY, FAR MORE CURIOUS than ANYONE else here I ASK ALL of the QUESTIONS that I OBVIOUSLY DO.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:52 am And is why nobody hardly responds to you, because you make absolutely no sense whatsoever when you posit your idea that you niether believe or disbelieve anything which would mean people could say absolutely anything they wanted to you, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing to you.
WHY do I, supposedly, make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER when I INFORM 'you' that I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing here?

By the way, this is NOT an 'idea'.

Also, if I say to you; 'I went snow skiing last month', do you HAVE TO believe, or disbelieve, 'this'?

If yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then WHY does it NOT make ABSOLUTELY ANY SENSE, to 'you', that I can ALSO do this?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:51 pm
Age wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 6:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:08 am
Irrelevant. What I am, for better or worse, will not help you.
In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Your inability to participate meaningfully in this forum, and, I would guess, the persistent difficulties you have in all social interactions.
If one does NOT ANSWER CLARIFY QUESTIONS posed to them, then I can NOT participate meaningfully in discussions with "others", in this forum, ALONE.

If one does NOT ACCEPT the CHALLENGES I put forward to them, then I can NOT participate meaningfully in discussions with "others", in this forum, ALONE.

Also, your INABILITY to participate meaningfully, in this forum, has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True to EXCEED my INABILITY, INFINITELY.

But, AGAIN, this is ALL just MORE ATTEMPTS, from you, at DISTRACTING AWAY from the Fact that you have NOT YET countered absolutely ANY thing I have SAID and WRITTEN here, and, you have NOT YET backed up NOR supported absolutely ANY thing you have CLAIMED here.

Oh, and by the way, do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF for your now NEW ASSUMPTION and CLAIM that "I have persistent difficulties in ALL social interactions"?

And, when will you EVER LEARN that making these ALL, ALWAYS, and EVERY CLAIMS are ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS and USELESS unless you COULD back and support them? But considering thee ABSOLUTE Fact that you NEVER COULD is just making you LOOK MORE and MORE STUPID here.

But PLEASE carry on EXACTLY as you have been "immanuel can".
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:51 pm Those are things that are your own issues...
LOL
LOL
LOL

Those 'things' do NOT even exist. Those 'things' are of YOUR OWN IMAGINATION and of YOUR OWN MAKING, which in Reality have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with 'Me'. As your OWN INABILITY to PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing in support of 'those things' WILL and DOES PROVE this IRREFUTABLY True.

ONCE AGAIN, your OWN INABILITIES PROVE what I SAY and CLAIM here IRREFUTABLY True.

And your ATTEMPTS at CONDESCENDING REMARKS is ONLY SHOWING more of who and what "immanuel can" Truly IS.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm
Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 5:58 am Yes, what we learn in life are the experiences true for us, i.e., as we interpret them. It’s certainly true others may interpret it differently, perhaps even more objectively. Truth has always been the easiest label to apply to whatever seems the most expedient, endorsing what it refers to as necessity instead of an act of will. There is a huge difference between something being true and Truth per se.
One way to approach this question,
'What' QUESTION are you referring to, EXACTLY?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm which seems an important one for you, is to examine those things, or those areas, where the *truth* of something is not and cannot be in any doubt. You could list thousands of them and you would question the perception, and perhaps the motive, of someone who argued against your truth-facts.

I could not argue against you when, as I believe you are trying to indicate, the issue in question moves into a far more subjective territory. I was thinking about the issue of truth, of what is true, when I thought of the message in Macbeth and again in Othello.
WHY do 'you', people, not just provide EXAMPLES, instead of all of this hinting at, and then the necessary guessing/assuming, what 'it' is, which you are ACTUALLY talking about and/or referring to?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm I assume you have read both.
WHY do 'you', adult human beings, continue to ASSUME 'things' are true, which may NOT have absolutely ANY truth in them AT ALL?

Are these types of ASSUMPTIONS just for CONDESCENDING EFFECT?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm We know, beyond doubt, that the play of Macbeth is invented through-and-through and we might measure someone's ability to grasp what is true from what is false to the degree that they, too, agreed with us.

Yet it is I would say *undeniable* that the meanings so pertinent to truth and which express truth, weave in and out of what is represented in the play. So then how do we talk about those *truths*? What happened to this man Macbeth? Why does it make so much sense to us how he was destroyed -- led to destruction and then involved directly in choices that resulted in destruction?
It is a FICTIONAL STORY right?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm Or what about the issue of what is true and what is a lie when one considers Othello's falling into the lie-traps that Iago set for him? That is, Iago's consciously-concocted lies with which he infected the mind and spirit of Othello? What would have been the *antidote* to the poisons that Iago injected into Othello's mind? More lies? Or truth?
WHY do you NOT just concentrate on what IS ACTUALLY True from what IS ACTUALLY False, INSTEAD?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm Do these pictures, or these representations, have applicability for you and I? If we were to sit down and talk about these things, and find the correspondences in our won lives, would we agree or would we disagree that there are 'truths' of this order? (I bank on the fact that we would agree).

So can you really say that in considering these matters that the interpretations that are made are merely inventions laid over 'reality'? That someone else would come along and look *objectively* at both these situations and see something, and say something, about each that would cause us to fundamentally alter our grasp of the truth?
How COULD one "fundamentally" alter their grasp of 'the truth'?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm
Truth has always been the easiest label to apply to whatever seems the most expedient, endorsing what it refers to as necessity instead of an act of will. There is a huge difference between something being true and Truth per se.
Well, when you put it this way I think I can agree with you at least generally. There is a large difference between a mere truth-fact and Truth in the larger sense -- and in my examples that of what we see and take away from both Macbeth and Othello.

The closer someone -- Shakespeare in this case -- pins down a Truth and perhaps I can say understands the difference between truth and falsity, as well as the consequence of a lie, the more likely it is that the truth revealed, if it is revealed, will seem constant, even eternal, and in this sense as a Truth of the sort we are referring to.
Honestly, I have no idea what you’re asking for regarding an “active or propositional” side!
It is not so hard to grasp. I make the suggestion that what you are saying, what you are trying to present, must have an *active* side or aspect. What are you attempting when you make the declarations you do? What result do you desire? I would ask this of Lacewing as well.
And, what are you attempting "alexis jacobi" when you make the declarations you do? And, what result do you desire?

You SHOULD be able to answer these CLARIFY QUESTIONS posed to you, especially if you are posing them onto "others", correct?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm In your case, and I cannot be sure why this seems so, I think the core of what you wish to present remains shadowed or obscured. It occurs to me that you may not even be al that clear about what your *intentions* are. Yet you are active in your assertions and I do not think it could be fairly said that your activity has no desired result. What do you have in mind? What am I to take away from your assertions? What are you up to?
Does it just become a HABIT to DETRACT, DISTRACT, or just be DECEPTIVE when one is a religious FOLLOWER, as they are become so used to NOT being ABLE to answer questions regarding their FAITH? It is because they are NOT able to ACCEPT the CHALLENGERS put to them regarding their RELIGIONS, do they just seeming "naturally" tend towards DECEPTION and DISTRACTION, INSTEAD?

The MORE the responses from FOLLOWERS are LOOKED AT the MORE this can be CLEARLY SEEN.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm I think it reveals something that you say "I have no idea" what I am asking you. Is the question a bad one? Does your answer mean you are asleep in some sense? Unaware of the *active* aspect you your own propositions? What do you think?
I think you are just 'TRYING TO' DETRACT AWAY from the Fact that your OWN INTERPRETATION of the religion you FOLLOW and BELIEVE in you can NOT back up NOR support and is based on things that are NOT even true anyway.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:54 pm If one does NOT ANSWER CLARIFY QUESTIONS posed to them, then I can NOT participate meaningfully in discussions with "others", in this forum,
Yes, you could. There are basic things you could do to make this experience much better for other people and much better for yourself. I'll list you a few.

Firstly, you should consider that not every statement in a post requires any "clarification." Some are clear as they stand. The tendency to interrogate every little detail comes across not as perceptive or interested, but as irrational and hostile. You need to reign yourself in, and be selective: what is the main point of a message, and what is worth interrogating. Ask only the question that matters, not every "clarifying question" that pops into your head.

Secondly, people have told you how unpleasant the CAPs are, and how they don't apppreciate your overuse of them. They're not serving the purpose you imagine they are: instead of emphasizing what you're feeling, they're irritating people. And you can tell that's right, because I'm far from being the first person you've heard that from. It's time you believed us.

Thirdly, find ways to be positive about whatever is positive in somebody else's message. That doesn't mean you can't interrogate -- it means that a steady diet of nothing but interrogation comes across as pointlessly fractious and hostile. And it makes responding far too much work for most people to bother -- and that's why most of what you write elicits no response.

Fourthly, "LOL" is a styling of children, not adults. It serves no purpose in your messages except to make them look childish. You should drop that completely. Also, get rid of the adolescent "you adults" thing, and the childish "alien" talk. Nobody's buying it. You can see that. It's just making you look petulant, and that's not the way you want to come across, is it?

Fifthly, conversation is not a combat sport. When people put out a proposition, the are often inviting your opinion -- which could be either positive or critical, but should always be polite. They're giving you a compliment and a privilege in responding to you; it's rude to come back at them with nothing but cynicism or negativity. Find ways to build their view up, in any way that it deserves to be built up, and keep the criticism for only those few things that really, really need it. Even then, you can be polite. Focus on the topic, and never insult the person unless you're ready to write them off for good.

I could give you more hints: but this is enough for now. You need to correct your communication style, so as to win more friends and allies, and to make fewer pointless enemies. I think you'll be happier with your experience here when you do.

I know how you're going to take all this: you're going to assume it's meant as hostile. It's not. Sometimes, only your best friends will tell you the truth. In this case, everything I'm telling you can help you to become much more effective on this forum. If I were hostile, if I were writing you off, I would not have any reason to bother telling you all this...especially since I have every reason to expect a hostile response from you, if history is any indicator.

Best wishes as you go forward. I promise you, you'll be happier if you change than if you keep up what you're doing.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:35 pm
Alexis Jacobi to Dubious wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:56 pm I make the suggestion that what you are saying, what you are trying to present, must have an *active* side or aspect. What are you attempting when you make the declarations you do? What result do you desire? I would ask this of Lacewing as well.
My aim is simply towards having clarity and seeing more broadly.
Well if just answer the CLARIFYING QUESTION, What is STOPPING or PREVENTING 'you' from NOT having CLARITY and being ABLE TO SEE more broadly ALREADY?, Honestly, then you WILL have MORE CLARITY and WILL be SEEING more broadly.

ONCE AGAIN, if people LOOK AT and QUESTIONED "themselves", and were completely Honest, instead of LOOKING AT "others" and 'judging' them, then people will GAIN far MORE CLARITY as well as being ABLE TO SEE far more OPENLY.
Post Reply