Christianity

[Dontaskme]

Either way, I've told you what you need to know. Whether or not you decide to know it is up to you.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it swim on it's back.

Let it be.

[henry quirk]

another basilisk hack: my brain is bleedin' from it

Free yourself from bleeding then, your a free being remember.

be quiet, DAM: I'll mock age as I like, when I like, for as long as I like

[Dontaskme]

another basilisk hack: my brain is bleedin' from it

Free yourself from bleeding then, your a free being remember.

be quiet, DAM: I'll mock age as I like, when I like, for as long as I like

I am not saying you can't, I'm just suggesting a remedy for the bleed on the brain. If we cannot stop the bleed then we'll bleed until the last drop... we are free to bleed out until the last drop is shed...show me a man who has finished with word, so I may have a word with him.

Where ego I go.

[Lacewing]

I hope that you will be able to understand that I cannot take your line of argument seriously. What are you up to? It is not clear to me.

Well, it seems clear that we speak different languages... and perhaps, even, live in different worlds. I am spiritual (without a god), and joyful and successful and productive in healthy ways as a result of my progressive and expanding perspectives and actions. So, what does that suggest can potentially exist besides your methodology and conservative-leaning beliefs?

(And I wonder if you are really clear about what you are really after).

It is funny and telling if you think that only your world makes sense.

I evidently have enough clarity to continually create an extraordinary life, as compared with those who (sadly) may think they have no choice and must operate/think within certain boundaries/rules. I've always encouraged others to see and create more than that.

[Immanuel Can]

Let it be.

Oh, I'm letting Age be whatever Age wants, no question.

[Lacewing]

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.

And that is not what I was suggesting.

Here's the context of what I was talking about ...

Can we operate on 'foundations' without being so tied to, or blinded by, them? .../... It is such limits that I think philosophers would be wise to question.

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

And that was in response to your comments about a 'Christian foundation'. Christian 'truths' are, indeed, a bit nebulous... but look at how people argue over them, and become rigid in them, instead of exploring what more could be possible? Such notions limit the idea of 'God'.

I think you might hear/understand me better if it weren't for the assumptions/stories you've applied to me.

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.

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.

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. 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.

I am not dismissing the value of truth -- I am challenging us to consider more truth... 'broader' truth. A singular truth only goes so far. And we humans tend to use 'singular truths' to build fantastic structures that deny all other truths. So how truthful is that... and isn't that important?

Added: And yes, considering more 'truths' may invalidate single 'truths'.

[Nick_A]

"Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." –Rumi

One of the ugliest most violent threads I ever participated in was "The Limitations of Reason." It seems that there is no greater conflict then the one between blind denial and blind belief. Something in the depth of the inner man senses a the deep truth of Christianity. Yet something within the shallowness of the egoistic personality rebels against it taking either the form of blind belief or blind denial.

Anyone capable of going beyond blind belief or blind denial is presented with the problem "how to begin." What is square one for the seeker of truth essential to experience what the soul needs to experience "meaning?" and who has the need and the courage to face it?

[Dubious]

And I would not refrain again from bringing up the question of Truth with a capital 't'. And the reason is because a) when I examine those words given to Macbeth I recognize statements about fundamentally true things. Things that were true then and things that are still true now. These are fundamental and enduring truths that transcend mutable circumstance. If this is so, I would assert, what is being spoken of are metaphysical truths.
But what are these? Where do they reside? Are they part of *the world* in the sense of Nature? I do not think so. No, they arise in an invisible yet determining territory that is outside of time & space, outside of the manifest world. They *enter* the world though and they have their effect.

What is a "metaphysical truth" except those you describe as such. Is there such a thing, and why should any truth be qualified as metaphysical? Truth is what it is; it doesn't need any qualifying additions. It's also debatable if metaphysics still actively exists or archived as an old discipline worthy of academic study only. Of what value is metaphysics to life except as thought cathedrals populated by the like-minded, not unlike the virtual reality world of a computer game.

There is another, a deeper, way to see the play of Othello. It has to do with the notion of 'sacred marriage'. You know, Christ as the bridegroom and the body of the Church as the bride.

I doubt Shakespeare thought of it in that way. From what I read, he was a very practical kind of guy who wasn't in the least concerned if his plays were lost to posterity! I see your situation as one desperately trying to make connections that don't exist in order to rinse some kind of customized meaning out of it. You obviously can if you want to, but the meaning you derive from it is all your own.

As is very common on philosophy forums, you seek to create mystery which aspires to some surface profundity in the belief that meaning will follow. Maybe I'm wrong but so far, that's how it looks to me.

[Age]

another basilisk hack: my brain is bleedin' from it

This is because you do NOT like to ACCEPT the Facts that I SHOW and PROVIDE here.

That brain can NOT cope with the Fact that its OWN CONTRADICTIONS are being EXPOSED. And, this is WHY you can NOT counter what I SAY and EXPOSE.

[henry quirk]

This is because you do NOT like to ACCEPT the Facts that I SHOW and PROVIDE here.

what facts?

you offer no facts

never have: never will

[Age]

The lines that I quoted here seem to express the core meaning of the play. And I find it interesting that though you have read the play, your comment about it gave no indication that you had got a sense of its meaning.

Gus you wally, you have leapt from words that "seem to express the core meaning of the play" to " its meaning". That in a nutshell is the error that armchair philosophers such as you and Mr Can make with the same incontinence as real fruitloops like Age and Veritas Aequitas.

If you do NOT PROVIDE ANY examples of WHERE I have, supposedly, done said 'thing', then what you say here lays ALL within your OWN IMAGINED WORLD. Which is, OBVIOUSLY, something ONLY the INSANE do.

So, we WAIT for your EXAMPLES "uwot". Until then your OWN sanity REMAINS in question here.

Also, as I have SHOWN PREVIOUSLY, it is 'you', "uwot", who MAKES CONCLUSIONS, and then BELIEVES those "conclusions" TO BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE. But which are based on NOTHING other than your OWN INTERPRETATION, and/or your OWN MEANINGS, that you "yourself" have PUT behind those "conclusions". You LEAP FROM what COULD 'this interpretation' REALLY MEAN to 'this interpretation' MEANS 'this', and then BELIEVE 'this' TO BE TRUE. Which, REALLY IS, extremely HUMOROUS to WATCH and SEE 'play out'.

The ONLY ones faux "scientists", such as "yourself", "uwot", FOOL are, LITERALLY "your" OWN 'selves'.

You have YET to DISCREDIT absolutely ANY thing that I have SAID and WRITTEN here, whereas I have SHOWN how some of what you have SAID and WRITTEN here is False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. But, you want to CLAIM that I am the "fruitloop" here.

So, WILL you back up this CLAIM of yours here with ANY supporting evidence or PROOF AT ALL?

If yes, then WHEN, EXACTLY?

That you should blunder into such an error is all the more ironic given that you have previously highlighted a warning against it:

But the result of the ascendency of philosophy was,
that in the fourth and fifth centuries the majority of churches
insisted not only upon a unity of belief in the fundamental facts of
Christianity, but also upon a uniformity of speculations in
regard to those facts. The premises of those speculations
were assumed; the conclusions logically followed: the
propositions which were contrary or contradictory to
them were measured, not by the greater or less probability
of the premises, but by the logical certainty of the conclusions;
and symmetry became a test of truth.

And this is what most interests me about the on-going conversation here: the gulf, or is it a chasm? that exists between some of us here. It should be obvious that the essence of the message in the play corresponds to the essential Christian message which need not be stated (or must it?)

YES IT MUST.

Otherwise EVERY one else is just ASSUMING.

So, until you state what 'that message' is EXACTLY, (and let us NOT FORGET that this would ONLY be from YOUR PERSPECTIVE), then what that so-called "essential message" IS, can be and WILL BE SEEN and KNOWN, from MANY DIFFERENT perspectives AND views.

But you and some others, when examining the same representation, do not see the same thing.

OF COURSE. Just about ANY thing can be LOOKED AT or EXAMINED and NOT the same thing is SEEN.

Well, different people can look at the same representation of Jesus nailed to a cross. Some will rejoice at the torture and murder that has allegedly erased any personal consequence for whatever sins they might have committed. Others will wonder at the turpitude of people who will gleefully heap their responsibility on to an innocent third party.

And different people can look at the same 'representation', 'evidence', 'results', and/or 'outcomes' and have completely DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS, and then SOME, like 'you', "uwot", start BELIEVING that some of those INTERPRETATIONS ARE TRUE, even though NO ACTUAL PROOF AT ALL exists for those INTERPRETATIONS.

The reason this interests me is because -- and this is my theory -- that when an entire culture falls away from the intellectual capacity to *see* the older metaphysical truths, and when these have been supplanted by other, I suppose materialistic, relativistic views, views that become so powerful they overshadow the old meaning, that these old meanings cannot any longer be perceived and understood.

Well if "christianity" did NOT DISTORT the REAL and ONLY True 'meanings', which existed PREVIOUSLY, then 'you' would NOT be living in this MESS that you are now, in the days when this is being written.

You could allow that there might be some in a culture who retain the intellectual capacity to perceive, understand and see the older metaphysical truths, but who for perfectly rational and intellectually rigorous reasons reject them. Again, it is a schoolboy error to assume that those who think differently think less.

Does this ERROR apply to adult human beings who consider that "others" who think differently ARE "fruitloops" AS WELL. After all it is 'you', "uwot" who ASSUMES that those who think DIFFERENTLY think less.

Or, do you BELIEVE that you do NOT FALL into making these ERRORS "yourself" "uwot"?

[Age]

You could allow that there might be some in a culture who retain the intellectual capacity to perceive, understand and see the older metaphysical truths, but who for perfectly rational and intellectually rigorous reasons reject them.

Maybe this should be a question directed at "yourself", "uwot".

After all it is 'you' who REJECTS the oldest of all, and IRREFUTABLE, Truths here.

[Age]

You could allow that there might be some in a culture who retain the intellectual capacity to perceive, understand and see the older metaphysical truths, but who for perfectly rational and intellectually rigorous reasons reject them. Again, it is a schoolboy error to assume that those who think differently think less.

Except that it is my experience, not as you say that those who oppose some of the *truths* I attempt to highlight are thinking less, but often through a rejection of that or those truths for other reasons. The interesting question, in my case, is in trying to define fairly why this is.

You have a GREAT TENDENCY "alexis jacobi" to LOOK AT "others" and what 'they' DO, while ALLUDING to 'things', but while NEVER providing ANY ACTUAL EXAMPLES to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Are you AWARE that you ALSO REJECT ACTUAL absolute and IRREFUTABLE Truths "yourself"?

So, ask "yourself" WHY 'YOU' do this, then you WILL UNDERSTAND and KNOW WHY 'this is'.

I fully admit that there are some highly intelligent people who succeed in cobbling together their reasonings (of the sort that may be employed to undermine or discredit the sense of meaning I refer to) and do influence others. In this we can refer to influential elites and intellectual leaders. I fully admit that these people exist and I fully acknowledge their influential power.

The WHOLE of "christianity", and the "scientific community" have been MISLED by 'those', with influence, and who have COBBLED TOGETHER False, Wrong, AND Incorrect 'stories' our of their OWN "reasoning".

'you', human beings, do NOT YET FULLY REALIZE this, in the days when this is being written, that it is BECAUSE of the ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE, which resides WITHIN, that 'you' are ABLE to 'reason' absolutely ANY and EVERY thing, EVEN to the point that 'you' can "reason" A 'thing' to be absolutely true, false, or correct even WHEN THAT 'thing' is absolutely, and irrefutably, False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect. BUT, 'you' can ONLY do this to "your" OWN 'selves'.

The FULL POTENTIAL of thee ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE, laying within, is YET to be FULLY KNOWN and ALLOWED to FLOURISH.

What I am interested in is discerning my way through their assertions, their declarations.

I suggest STARTING with one's OWN 'assertions' and their 'declarations', and DECIPHER the Right from the Wrong, FIRST, BEFORE ever even starting to even wonder about "others".

I think that it is fair to say, my dear Willy, that you make clear what your relationship is to this entire issue of metaphysics -- you are totally contemptuous of those who hold to these understandings. All that you say drips with your scathing contempt. Now, what I say is that you, in the sense of your mood, the activism in your proposals, can be and should be examined. You are a clever person and no one could say differently, [/quote]

That would be depended upon how exactly you are defining the word 'clever' here.

I do NOT call BELIEVING 'things' to be true and correct when there is absolutely NO actual PROOF for that 'thing' AT ALL, 'NOT clever', AT ALL, EITHER.

but you also show signs of being something of a dolt (if you will permit this term) -- in relation to the subtle meanings that I focus on.

The connection I am making, let us say, between Iago and Othello and what I perceive of your discourse in relation to those you influence, should not be hidden or concealed. I do not attempt to hide it but I do try to be somewhat subtle! This is the area that interests me -- intellectually, personally, but also philosophically and culturally.

But 'you' are one of the ones who HIDE the MOST here.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here through these writings.

And this is taking place within this long on-going thread which in its essence deals with these core questions.

You are SO 'subtle' and 'vague' that you talk about 'things', like, for example here, 'core questions' but NEVER EVER mention what the 'core question' ACTUALLY IS.

Different people reveal their connection to the issues here in very different ways. Questions of 'degrees'.

What you quoted back to me is not something I wrote, it is something I am considering. And all things can be considered as part of this puzzle.

Again, what is THIS 'puzzle', EXACTLY, which you have VERY VAGUELY refer to here?

[Age]

Go back and read my message with the five points. That will lay out exactly what you need to know. At least, at the start.

I KNOW what you want to help me with.

Well, then...if you have any self-awareness, you'll fix it. And if you don't, you won't.

LOL You REALLY DO BELIEVE that 'you', "immanuel can", are SUPERIOR.

Which is ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE considering WHERE 'you' ACTUALLY SIT in the order of 'things'.

LOOK, let us just be COMPLETELY Honest here. You can NOT answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, correct?

Now, relate this to the words 'self-awareness', and then think about THIS.

Either way, I've told you what you need to know.

EXTREMELY CONDESCENDING.

Especially considering the Fact that you have NOT directly done ANY such thing. All you have done is just TELL me what you ASSUME I "need" to know.

And, besides this I have ALREADY INFORMED you that NONE of what you have TOLD me is a "need" AT ALL.

Whether or not you decide to know it is up to you.

And, I have TOLD you what can be KNOWN. Whether you CHOOSE to remain where you ARE now, or NOT, is COMPLETELY up to you.

Also, let us not forget that you claimed that you could so easily prove my replies wrong, and so easily contest what I write. Yet, we are still waiting for you to do any such thing.

All that you write and say here is just OBVIOUSLY further DISTRACTION.

[Immanuel Can]

You REALLY DO BELIEVE that 'you', "immanuel can", are SO SUPERIOR....EXTREMELY CONDESCENDING.

Not at all.

I'm trying to be kind to you, and you're declining that. And you're free to do so.

Consider this: most people won't take the time to help you map out a way to have better conversational and personal success in dealing with other people. Why won't they? Maybe they're too polite to try. Maybe they don't know what to say. But maybe a lot of them do, but don't think you're important enough for them to bother.

I do. Take the compliment.

But as for the advice, nobody can make you take that. You'll be happier and more successful if you do, but it's up to you.