View Full Version : Why ...?
Why do we seek the Truth?
It would be unfair to project the sometimes-acrimonious nature of this forum onto the rest of the world, but this is a fair place to start.
So I'm wondering why we seek the truth. History has shown paradigm "truths" to be both progressive and also outright dangerous. One might say, for instance, that the acts fostered by the Christian search for truth indicate danger in that truth; likewise, one might suggest that certain logical processes, inherent to those dangers, advanced civilization--that is, would we have developed a scientific process when we did had not at least one philosophical exploration led to the detail we find in the theological constructions of Christian faith?
This applies in many ways: Tibetan Buddhists might be "peaceful", but they're overrun right now by barbarians, and it doesn't seem to be getting much better. Muslims claim to transcend Christianity, and Sikhs claim to have fine-tuned parts of Islam, but Muslims rumble with Christians in the Middle East, and Muslims and Sikhs kill each other--literally--by the busload.
What I'm after here is that the truths of the philosophies don't seem to help the individuals who nullify the benefits of said truths. And religion isn't unique here.
Look at the shortcomings of the almighty "Democracy". Manifest Destiny, a worthless Monroe Doctrine, and a modern society more bent on hating itself for superficial reasons than ever before. Communism? The truth of "the people" led to unspeakable horrors. The truth of the Reich ....
Perhaps the question should read: "When we find a/the truth, what will/should we do with it?"
* One thing that has occurred to me as I try to spit out this post is a notion of "responsibility". For instance, once upon a time, demons and devils might have driven a man's libido to criminal deviation. Now we can pin down certain blood and brain disorders, as well as acquired, psychological patterns; we can no longer say that the devil made us do this. (We can, but it involves figurative interpretation of the phrase.) So, as we learn more about how and why the mysteries of our Mystery exist, do we assume any greater responsibility for the care, clarity, and propriety of our knowledge? If we learn something new about God that contradicts something old, are we obliged to change the prior perception in any way? And how does that change affect our behavioral interactions with the principle in question?
Okay, I'll shut up now. :D
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
I don't think there is such a thing as the 'truth', so it will be very hard for us to find one and even harder to apply it.
To prove my point I would like to elaborate a bit on the term 'fact'.
What is a fact ? Is it a certainty in the sense of 'a collection of true statements about a certain event' ? And with this certainty are we talking about 100% certainty or an acceptable >99% ? Are there knowables with a truthvalue of a 100% ?
These questions were once asked by Descartes more then 350 years ago. In order to address them he doubted everything one could possebly doubt, at the end he found there was only one thing he could be absolutely sure of : he was a thinking being.
This indeed is a pretty basic knowable that we could give a truthvalue of 100%. Unfortunatly this means that anything that is not a direct derivate of this knowable is subject to doubt and thus has a lesser truthvalue.
So if we call fact those statement with a 100% truthvalue than there is only 1 single fact : the person who thinks about these sentences and words is a thinking being. This doesn't really agree with our general concept of what 'fact' means so we have to weaken our truthvalue a bit and define facts as :
A fact is a statement about a certain event of which the truthvalue is reasonably high.
Since we don't have objective means to measure the truthvalue of all possible statements we could propose that reasonably high means : acceptable by all contenders of the discussion.
This means however that a fact is subject to discussion and has to be agreed upon by all contenders.
For example if I hold it for a fact that Mohammed was educated by the Archangel Michael, it stops being a fact from the moment I bring it into a discussion. I would have to ask everyone if they agree with my statement or truthvalue standards.
[This message has been edited by Plato (edited March 22, 2000).]
But we do have objective means to measure the truthvalue by. It's a matter of parameters. If you keep your parameters generalized, of course you can apply interpretive meanings. But with better defined parameters, facts can be stated with measurable truthvalues. For example, according to commonly accepted spelling formulae for American-English as defined by the majority, if not all, of the English language dictionaries in existence, you misspelled the word "unfortunately".
------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.
For example, according to commonly accepted spelling formulae for American-English as defined by the majority, if not all, of the English language dictionaries in existence, you misspelled the word "unfortunately".
You couldn't illustrate my point more clearly ! The way "unfortunately" is spelled is an agreement of all liguists who have ever wondered how one would spell such a darn word ;) For me, for whome English is not my mother tongue, I can even wonder why the hell they came up with one word that in my language (Dutch) needs two "spijtig genoeg" to convey the same meaning.
You see there is a lot of arbitraryness to the so called objectiveness of language.
Ok, but there has to be other things that are objective for example a Geiger-Müller counter that gives an accurate reading of the radio activity of a certain source. What this device does is simply count the amount of alfa particles that fall in its collimator. What can be more objective then counting right ?
The problem here lies in the thing that is counted, the Geiger-Müller counter doesn't really 'see' the alfa-particles, it measures a small voltage peak each time such a particle falls into its semi-conducting crystal that makes up the actual measurer, this signal gets amplified because on itself it is to weak to get measured. You see that there is an interpretation involved because each voltage peak gets 'interpreted' as being an alfa-particle. The Geiger-Müller counter only works because of the underlying theory of radioactivity and electromagnetism, these are constructs of the human mind and to a certain degree products of an agreement between all the people who were directly or indirectly involved.
I agree of course that with the first example there is a great amount more arbitraryness involved than in the second one but both are subjective and can't make 100% true statements.
------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton
Stretch
03-23-00, 07:44 AM
Tiassa,
( I still don`t know how to do the quote thing, so I`ll just type it out)
“When we find a/the truth, what will/should we do with it?”
Aleister Crowley found a truth, and in his perspective it was – “Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the Law”, but in my perspective I find this an entirely selfish and extremely dangerous truth. So, first one needs to consider that what may be a truth to one individual, may be a lie to another individual. (and is that not the cornerstone of this Religious Debate forum?) And I believe that is really a fundamental of human nature. The Ego seems to drive mankind to do the worst with the Truths that they find. Even the Truth of Christ was/is perverted by the Church. (we don`t need to open that can of worms again!)
And we really can`t win, as it is totally clear that mankind will, time and time again,(as history indicates) desecrate the truth in a ongoing spiral of self gratification. It`s almost as if this is our natural state. Surely the preservation of, and respect for, human life is the most obvious truth? And yet on a global scale there is absolutely no respect for human life. (war/crime)
All Mahatma Ghandi`s teachings of peace and love, have made not one iota of difference. Jesus Christ died on the Cross to redeem mankind for their evil. He preached brotherly love and reconciliation. This has made no difference to the way human nature displays a total lack of regard for human life. This tangent seems to be leading to depression on my side! Under the circumstances the best thing to do with a truth is to hide it under your pillow and not allow anyone else to make up your bed!
Why I think we seek the truth, for in that search we discover the fingerprints of hope, and we can find the strength to paint small patches of bright colour onto the canvass of our human condition.
Here`s a quote which is relevant:
“Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of the painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd. “
Take care
I still don`t know how to do the quote thing, so I`ll just type it out
If you look at the icons on top of each message one of them is "quote", click that one and a new world will open before your eyes... :)
Surely the preservation of, and respect for, human life is the most obvious truth?
I would call this truth as obvious as calling the earth flat ! Suppose you replace the word 'human' with 'mosquito' then a war between humans becomes a moral thing to do because it kills of so many of those ruthless monsters who try to harm the nobel mosquito race ! 'Rid the planet of the human infestation' becomes a prime directive of any moral being !
My point is of course we have no right what so ever to place our pettifull little selves on a silver plate. This underlines again my previous statement : there is no such thing as a truth of 100% certainty, only degrees of it. Even this previous statement is subject to that since I am only stating my opinion and can be wrong...
------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton
Stretch
03-23-00, 11:57 AM
Plato,
Thanks for the technical info, I`ll see if I can make it work as my browser is pretty temperamental.
But sorry ,I cannot agree that the value of human life can be equated with mosquitoes. If you were confronted with a psychotic gunman in killing mode, would you still dispute this truth?
I understand your analogy, but mankind is able to moralise anything in the name of gratification. Essentially even though I am cynical as to the dark side of human nature, we have as a species achieved a certain degree of civilisation. Just think of the great artists and philosophers. I don`t see a Mosquito museum dedicated to the great artistic and architectural achievements of the Mosquito civilisation. (ha,ha .. O.K. I know what you`re thinking, and yes that is childish)
“My point is of course we have no right what so ever to place our pettifull little selves on a silver plate.”
Absolutely … if mankind could take on the mantle of humility, wouldn’t the world be a better place? But there is no space in the Ego for this simple truth. If we could just settle for a tin plate it would be a start! And I do agree that no truth can be 100% certain. How could one even rate the definition of a “truth” at 100% As you said, we all have individual opinions. But I think our very yearning and searching for truth implies a certain facet of truth.
Take care
Stretch--
To be honest, I disagree with your assessment of "Do what thou wilt". But it requires a discussion of its own, though I might say that part of the problem in the modern day with statements such as "Do what thou wilt" may well be the United States itself. I fully see the selfish aspects you're referring to, but I think the presuppositions to act negatively on "Do what thou wilt" are inherent to prevailing trends in American capitalist libertarianism.
However, let me drop it for now, on the grounds that as long as I take issue with you on this, we'll have an issue, and I don't think it's critical in any way to resolve you to my perspective. ;)
And we really can`t win, as it is totally clear that mankind will, time and time again,(as history indicates) desecrate the truth in a ongoing spiral of self gratification.
The sad thing about that is that it doesn't have to be that way; we, as individuals and a societal collective, choose it to be that way. If I might drag politics into this for a moment, let me say that no matter how much we Americans bemoan our government, I'm stunned that we cannot collectively make the decision (as individuals) that it's not worth the whining when we can simply elect smarter politicians.
I think the perpetuity of the process is elective; for every desecration of the truth there existed at least one intersection where somebody had to make a choice without which the process would not go forward. Even as a community allows a tragedy to develop and occur by complicity--what choices allow that development?
Part of it may well be capitalism. "Trickle-down" was the watchword for the capitalist benefit in the 1980's, the idea that the success of the top would trickle down and manifest as improvements in conditiosn at the bottom of the economic food-chain. We see in the modern era that most Americans are apparently preoccupied with their own selves; sack the greater community, there must be a way to do this without putting in this much effort, or this much personal cost. We can economize, and get what we want, and still respect the necessity of the bottom line.
Take the Wall Street Journal or the London Financial Times, two newspapers centered around commerce and economy. All stories in either of those papers will have economic considerations included--it is the role of these newspapers. But we'll debate the merits of a story we read in the Journal or the Times and transcend those limitations when we examine the issues. Conflicts will arise that are unnecessary because our own, individual, self-centered perspective fails to account for the necessary perspective of the source. The issues might be resolved elsewhere, but we haven't looked. Or something--it's more a perspective point I'm aiming for than a specific process.
All of what I'm trying to point to is a version of selfishness. Not the selfishness that we demonize, like the deliberate withholding of our excesses in the face of need, but the deeper, neutral selfishness that motivates the shallow surface process. Something along the lines of Kantian egocentrism in moral considerations; it is not a deliberate self-centeredness, but something that seems to come with being alive. In that aspect, I think humanity at large has simply failed to recognize that we hold a dynamic influence over our own destinies, and that we can muck around within the current problems until they are "solved", or we can transcend them entirely, and render artificial solutions unnecessary.
I mean, how tough is it to run a business and conform that practice to, say, Christian standards, so that you meet the expectations of a Christian conscience while complying with the law? In the end, the need to "eat" outweighs allegiance to nebulous "Christian principle", and some sacrifices of principle are made. But this is so apparently inherent as to divorce the ethical motivation from the process itself, so that one may regard that business separately from moral principle. (Disclaimer: I employ "Christian" here because collectively, this forum seems most familiar with it, and thus can more readily conceive of conflicts between practical necessity and moral principle; it's a matter of familiarity, and not of singling out.)
That's why Ghandi remains unheard, in my opinion. Simply, that we've become too obsessed with reaping the personal benefits of any kind philosophy, and not recognizing our obligations to it. If every individual (again, familiarity) accepts only the benefits of Christian mercy and charity, and gives none, there will eventually be no Christian mercy or charity.
There are truly moments when we must profiteer to feed our children or leave them hungry for a night in the community's greater interests. (Ideally, we should build our world so this choice is never required, but ....) Unfortunately, the number of situations where people apply that ultimatum as their ethical standard has reduced such rhetoric to the point of a petty excuse. It's become common rhetoric in most American economic/political fights.
.... for in that search we discover the fingerprints of hope, and we can find the strength to paint small patches of bright colour onto the canvass of our human condition.
And thus someday see the resolved image, the whole mosaic of the divine will. :D
The problem is that we acknowledge self-determination to exist. At the same time, many individuals determine that it is best to not rock the boat (and, by proxy, to not try to improve), and thus take unwitting part in a social cruelty. I had always thought part of faith was to identify those less-than-godly moments and discover why they happen, so that one does not repeat the same "sin".
Of course, apathetically perpetuating homelessness through political ideals designed to keep your kids eating is considered less sinful than masturbating. Now, that's not fair, because that's only certain portions of one ultimately diverse religion where I encounter such ideas, but those moments define the problem, in my opinion.
We don't change it, though. So I must assume, as Camus advises, that we are, generally, happy as individuals within the present scheme. As such, I tend to indict society as a whole for failing itself. (Camus--Myth of Sisyphus: like Prometheus, Sisyphus angered the gods; his punishment was eternal, fruitless labor in the form of pushing a stone boulder up a hill, whereupon it would roll down to the bottom and Sisyphus would repeat the process until eternity. He's dead ... what can the gods do if he walks away? We must, therefore assume Sisyphus to be happy.)
But we can win. It's just a matter of reaching enough individuals to incite the body social to roll over in its slumber. Unfortunately, I have no firm idea how to begin accomplishing that.
Under the circumstances the best thing to do with a truth is to hide it under your pillow and not allow anyone else to make up your bed!
I find myself in agreement. Perhaps this site is the Truth Fairy; maybe if we all go through it long enough, we'll stumble onto a statistical set that functions well enough to be a new version of "the answer". Though I wouldn't expect to live long enough to see that process come to fruition. But as an aspiring artist, let me comment that what motivates my prose, poetry, and other work (none of which is good enough to publish, release, or produce for money) is actually a tangible sensation I used to get from good writers; if I can randomly touch people in that way, I'm essentially planting the seed of what might be a good idea. What that person does with it is entirely up to them; but to this day Uncle Shelby (Silverstein) and Madeline L'Engle can evoke a visceral reaction and spin me into a new version of an old perspective. There's an album cover for Uncle Anesthesia by the Screaming Trees that has stuck with me since I first saw it in '90 or '91 ... I have scattered hundreds of sketches for an oil painting about the northwest (on the back of concert flyers, or whatever--usually made while drinking heavily) that are all virtually the same, and would not be without whatever it is that I find so compelling about this Cronenberg-esque Alice in Wonderland scene. It is in those tiny moments, not from large political rhetoric, that the seeds of transformation are planted. Experience always outweighs rhetoric, yet we temper our experience to meet rhetorical truths.
Um ... wow. Okay, I've lost myself in general. Sorry about the rambling, but it's a huge issue with me, what we do with truth. But I've got work to do and someone, somewhere is allegedly paying me for it. Let me know when I stop making sense. ;)
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
PS--your closing quote about complex physiology & psychology ... have you used it recently? It's familiar in a way I can't pin down.
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
Well, this isn't a very detailed or complicated answer, but I think that I myself seek the truth because I overwhelmingly feel, and have always felt, like the answer that "we just grew here", and that we are nothing more than animals with thumbs and rather large brains, just doesn't make sense, based upon what we KNOW in our hearts, and based upon what we see and feel in our reality. It is to answer the question that Boris refuses to answer, and that question is NOT how, but WHY.
WHY?????????????????????? :)
And what about this conflict that is soooooo obvious and is based upon the two schools of belief? If we are animals and there is no God, then evolutionary rules apply, survival of the fittest, greed is good, there is no sin, and anything goes. Do whatever "feels good". So why does it "feel good" then to be jealous, greedy, angry, hateful, selfish, lustful? And then the belief that we are not simply animals, but spiritual beings, of God, and subject to spiritual laws. The spiritual laws seem almost opposite to evolutionary laws, and create peace and joy and happiness in us all, though we are NEVER inclined to follow them. I'm saying....nothing else makes sense based upon reality. NOTHING ELSE.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Lori--
If I might, just a quick question:
I'm saying....nothing else makes sense based upon reality. NOTHING ELSE.
"Nothing else" ... Something that makes sense as opposed to "nothing else". What is that something?
Truly, for I am either reading you utterly wrong, or failing to put two and two together get anything other than "Q". (But that's most likely a glitch in my works, not yours. ;) )
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
Q? :confused:
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Stretch
03-23-00, 05:54 PM
Hi Tiassa,
Here in Cape Town it`s pretty late in the evening, and I `ve just popped into this forum, yet I feel the need to respond to your post briefly, I will respond in greater detail tomorrow from work. Firstly I would have assumed that you were a publishing writer as your understanding and grip of the English language is quite remarkable. But more remarkable is your incredibly fresh way of thinking, and your invigorating wit! You underestimate your ability, and to me, you have been amazingly inspiring. You always make sense.
I`ll expand on my closing quote of my last post tomorrow, I have not mentioned it before, but I`ve intimated as to my understanding of the human condition before.
Take care.
Lori--
You have achieved my point to full fruition. Don't worry, it's not about you. But, actually, "Q" was supposed to confuse you.
All I meant to demonstrate was that I wasn't in opposition. However, the question could become moot if there's something obvious about what I'm asking. Since I'm adding your "2+2" and not getting 4, I'm either missing your point or simply doing the figuring wrong. Hence, whenever I add your 2+2, I'm getting "Q" for an answer (anything, essentially, but 4).
thx ... later,
Tiassa
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
Stretch
03-24-00, 07:42 AM
Hi Tiassa,
Some thoughts on your last post.
Mankind has the potential to unite and live for a common cause. You can see examples of that potential in team sport. Unfortunately in professional team sport it is normally financially motivated, which is my big bugbear. If money lost it`s value in the minds of men, would we live in a different world? Trade is such an inherent part of human nature (I`d say globally) But this is O.K. This is in reality, survival. Trade/money equals food+shelter. I have a vast problem when trade/money equates to power. Look at Africa. There certainly is political chaos, and maybe the West has burnt it`s fingers financially in the past, but look at the potential. Yet, because there is no quick return, there is very little investment. This equates to an imbalance of power, and the ensuing African poverty leads to bloodshed, mayhem and starvation. So the West is really not operating from a true Christian perspective. The West would rather invest their money in local Churches. The religion of our age is “Chasethedollaranity”
And this has skewed mankind’s spiritual integrity to such an extent, that it may well be lost forever. There are small pockets of conscience that try to make a difference, but their voices are so soft that they are lost in the winds of global economic acrobatics. But in their efforts they are living a truth, and in this way reap the rewards of spiritual integrity. This can be defined as a clear conscience and a genuine state of happiness! The most elusive truth for mankind in general.
“I mean, how tough is it to run a business and conform that practise to, say, Christian standards, so that you meet the expectations of a Christian conscience while complying with the law?”
I have a friend who runs a large printing business on strict Biblical and Christian ethics. This business has flourished for about 10 years now, yet he has turned down so much profitable business that he considered unethical. Porn, etc. This guy lives and works for the benefit of his surrounding family and community. He really has been an inspiration in my travels through the quagmire of human depravity. He has true unshakeable spiritual integrity and has achieved a state of happiness, which is remarkable.
“And thus see the resolved image, the whole mosaic of the divine will”
Exactly!!
And I agree that we can win. Notwithstanding my problem with mankind’s immorality and spiritual dearth, I really can see and feel a societal shift in spiritual perspective. The New Age movement is gaining in momentum and is really spiritually motivated. There is a certain spiritual rebirth taking place, but is still on an extremely limited scale. The joy and hope is in the actual intent of this process.(oops, I almost forgot … New Age is of the dark one) But I do believe that any spiritual search will ultimately lead to an improvement of the human psyche. And is that not better than playing Blackjack for the clothes on your back? Am I the only one who is overwhelmed by the “nowherereallity” surrounding me?
The tangible sensation you get/got from reading good writers, and the satisfaction you can glean from touching others through your writing and planting the seed of an idea … that is the life-force of the creative impulse, and a ticket into the arena of self discovery via the creative digestion of your soul.
The quote I used in my last post about mankind’s complex physiology and psychology is from a summation of the Gnostic Worldview. You may have come across this via Aleister Crowley, or Christian Apocrypha. It really is a sobering illumination as to what mankind is actually facing. Here a further quote:
“The world-spirit in exile must go through the Inferno of matter and the Purgatory of morals to arrive at the spiritual Paradise.”
This kind of evolution of consciousness was envisioned by the Gnostics, long before the concept of evolution was known.
And a final quote from my favourite – The Thunder, Perfect Heart.
“Hear me in gentleness, and learn of me in roughness.
I am she who cries out,
and I am cast forth upon the face of the earth.
I prepare the bread and my mind within.
I am the knowledge of my name.
I am the one who cries out,
and I listen.”
Take care
Tiassa,
What I mean is that when I look at my life, and life in general, at society in general, at history, at the problems that we all struggle with, the pain, the joy, and where it all comes from. Just from simply trying to self-analyze my intent and my own joy and pain and where it comes from and why. I swear Tiassa, I looked everywhere, and many philosophies and faiths came kinda close, but the Bible, and specifically the Gospel explains it all PERFECTLY. And no other source was able to do that. Not considering ALL THINGS. That's why I get frustrated out here....cause we're always taking just a little sliver at a time, and there are so many conditions and variables that are interdependent within the faith, that it makes it hard to isolate one aspect of it and come to a steadfast conclusion about it, without considering a whole bevy of potential causes and effects and circumstance. That's why you almost have to reduce everything down to the "sinless" ideal to get a good grasp on how different we and this world would be. It's just all very large you know? But given the largeness, the Bible is the ONLY sourse I've ever heard of that explains it all in a way that makes sense like math. And I like that. :D
Tiassa,
You may think I'm totally oblivious, but I still for the life of me, can't figure out what it is that you have a problem with regarding my faith. Is it that you do believe in God, Jesus, Satan, but you just don't like the imperfection in execution of the faith by it's practitioners? I'm really trying hard to pinpoint your beliefs, but I'm still at a loss. Please help! And man, please do not recite another Crowleyism. I want to know what YOU believe. What makes sense to you based on your life and why? You know, I went back to try to find the post where you fell off the toilet and I couldn't. I think that experience is a little more than coincedental. Did you have any type of spiritual connection to these other two friends at all? I know it's personal, so only if you want to, would you tell me about the stuff that you said happened to you when delving into the dark side, and what conclusions you came to because of it?
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Lori--
....the Bible is the ONLY sourse I've ever heard of that explains it all in a way that makes sense like math.
I am unable to share that sentiment.
....but I still for the life of me, can't figure out what it is that you have a problem with regarding my faith.
For the life of me, Lori, I can't figure out why you think it's a problem with your specific faith. You are an individual, true, but are each of your faith points so utterly unique that they stand alone among your peers in faith? I mean it's real simple, in my mind. You tell us the Bible makes sense, like math, and I very much doubt, based on your past expositions, that you could support this.
Your faith is your own; certain parts of it are inviolate--I have no right to challenge them. But your faith expressions are subject to the considerations of others.
When you express a sentiment, or a "fact" about, say, Satan .... Before I can accept that fact about Satan, it has to fit with the other suppositions about divine cosmology and theology. If it contradicts by proxy or implication what you express about God, then I feel compelled to observe it.
But I accept the terms of your deal: no more Crowleyisms from me, and that of course means no more Biblical citations from you. Any other subjects to declare Verboten?
It isn't that you believe the same things that I find objectionable from centuries past. But you do sometimes repeat the same processes. But we hear how loud music (as a genre), or sexy or violent TV (as a genre), or various collective ideas (Communism) are bad because of their results. Despite the best artistic, spiritual, or economic intentions, something still goes badly and ruins the whole process. That is a danger I see creeping up on American Christianity. You're right when you say that individuals are imperfect, but if the prevailing result of the collective idea is sour, then so is the concept. Individuals must stop engaging the same logical traps as their myopic predecessors. Religion may be complex, but faith seems economized for convenience. I can't say that of your faith, per se, but I do see the same processes at work in your presentation.
The bit about falling off the toilet wasn't particularly of any spiritual impact to me. The sum effect of it was to ask about your posture; after all considerations of drug use, I still think that at least two of those three events could be related to pinching of nerves in the back, and so forth. I just wanted to suggest the possibility that if you have a specific posture during prayer, that its long-term engagement might eventually result in the hot-flash symptom you described.
And therein lies another problem, albeit not specifically with faith. But faith seems to motivate you to make declarations about experiences in your life. One claims to see a Ufo, and everyone asks about weather balloons, lightning, meteor showers, &c. One makes claims about a miracle of God--are those to whom the claim is related not entitled to reconcile their own questions? Posture? Drugs? Diet? Viral infection? (I recall that you ruled out menopause, I think.) That's why I point to Saint Ignatius, whose visions of God might have been the result of a cannonball, and having to have some of his leg bones sawed away.
I'm out of time, but I don't want to dismiss the questions of the darkness. Those I shall try to address sometime this evening, but forgive me if I make no promises, for my weekend time has been diminishing to stupid social obligations.
All of this I offer with the best sentiment possible. :)
thanx ... peace,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
Lori--
I think I owe you at least one expansion, a few more answers, and perhaps a clarification or two.
Regarding subjects verboten ... all I can say is that, having no fixed canon, certain writings become sacred, having either given me a perspective to accept on faith as reality, or else having offered a starting point toward a goal I sought. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I ever actually reach those goals, but that is not the fault of the source, say, Crowley.
At one point, Crowley writes, "Mind is a disease of semen." He's not entirely incorrect; there's a bumper sticker after nearly the same point--Life is a 100 percent fatal sexually-transmitted disease. It isn't that I gain some brilliant insight from it, but that the whole poem (which asserts that a man is only himself at the moment of orgasm, when bliss blots out consciousness) eventually wove itself into several realizatons, new threads that made better sense for a longer period than the poem itself. Even though I consider Steeped Horsehair with greater humor than the author intended, I still like it because it's a part of my process of discovering the self, discovering the human race, discovering the Universe and its nature.
Instead of dropping in the quote, I'll offer The Blind Webster, which I think is actually more straightforward than the explanation. But here's the link, if you like: http://members.aa.net/~slmndr/uncle_al/lies/24.html
I'm hoping that one will give you an idea of what I'm after. There is a fairly apparent meaning of the poem that I think is self-evident in its theological implications.
Okay ... um ... what else was it ... oh! I didn't mean to be so dismissive about the Falling Off the Toilet. But my intent when I originally brought it up surrounded the idea of the causes, not of the actual experience. As strange as it seems, I can guarantee you that this was not related to the drugs I was on, else it was a random deviation. But I figure it will be a while before I can speculate on the nature of that episode; experience has taught me that I will see something like this again in my time, and that my perspective will improve greatly.
Of the two friends, I have at least a base spiritual connection with them inasmuch as I believe that "if spirit truly is, then all spirit is one, and interconnected with its diverse manifestations." One of them, its true, is just nutty enough to psychosomatically induce those symptoms; she had not learned the nature of what exactly was wrong with me before it put her down, but she already knew I was having trouble both with consciousness and getting my pants up. ;) I share with the other friend a strange sense of spiritual relationship. In addition to that base connection, nothing else has developed by convention. We were starting to relate too well for another friend of ours, who promptly shattered about six spiritual connections in the process of trying to interfere with ours. (This friend doesn't understand yet that free will or self-determination do not mean that you always get what you want. It's actually a Christian-related thing, but even I can say that it in no sense reflects anything but a perverse trend restricted to specific congregations in a genuinely strange sect.) But, as to the convention regarding spiritual relations ... After our potential to bond was severely deflected, circumstance essentially kept us both distracted so that by the time we had the time to think about it, we were pretty much happy with the tangible aspects of our friendship.
To be honest, though, The Simpsons are on .... I shall address the darkness soon, though. As another feeble excuse, I offer these words, by Dave Mustaine:
Up from the earth
and through the trees,
I can hear her
calling me
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
Tony H2o
03-27-00, 05:06 AM
Why do we seek the truth?
Ecc 3,11:
He hath made everything beautiful in its time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, yet so no man can find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.
We seek the truth because eternity has been set in our hearts, we are eternal creatures and we seek eternal answers. Yet even so, no man will ever know all that God has done from begining to end.
Ecclesiastes 3:
1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven:
2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboreth?
10 I have seen the travail which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith.
11 He hath made everything beautiful in its time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, yet so no man can find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.
12 I know that there is nothing better for them, than to rejoice, and to do good so long as they live.
13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy good in all his labor, is the gift of God.
14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it; and God hath done it, that men should fear before him.
15 That which is hath been long ago; and that which is to be hath long ago been: and God seeketh again that which is passed away.
16 And moreover I saw under the sun, in the place of justice, that wickedness was there; and in the place of righteousness, that wickedness was there.
17 I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked; for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
tablariddim
03-27-00, 10:05 AM
Why do we seek the truth?
I think I began to seek the 'truth', when I began to notice religious hypocricy at around 13 or 14.
So I came up with a few theories, read a few books, eventually rejecting everything I'd learnt and for ten years relied on the weed to help with my insights.
Then I did my stint as a born again wotjumakolit for 3 or 4 years until I realised that the whole faith thing is simply a state of mind, which was beginning to have a very negative effect on me. Making me feel guilty, hypocritical and depressed.
I soon knocked that one on the head and found my peace of mind again (found myself again).
For the past ten years or so I suppose I've been an agnostic verging on atheist, though I think of Jesus often and wish he could be 'true'(nothing's black and white with me). The weed is still my spiritual spring and will probably be the death of me, well que sera sera.
So, if I'm forced to make a conclusion, then at this moment in time I feel that 'truth' is 100% subjective. The same as reality.
So whatever 'truth' I've accepted, is not really 'the truth'. It is merely the truth which suits my psyche best at this partircular time in my 'growth'. I've no doubt that my truth will (even subtly) change as I grow older, because I certainly haven't found the answer yet.
------------------
Oh my God it's the funky shit!!!
MoonCat
03-27-00, 11:59 AM
I have to agree with Tab' on this one. "Truth" is as hard to define as "good" or "evil" - it depends upon the point of view in almost every case.
The only things I can see where truth is absolute would be for things that are "man-made". She is named Roberta Smith. Her parents gave her that name and that name alone, any other name would be "untruthful". But once you start getting to things like asking whether or not earthworms have souls, it becomes impossible to nail down what is the truth and what is not. Best guesses and collective agreements are the closest you can get to discerning the truth. (Collective agreements as in saying: "Okay, so we all agree earthworms think" or somesuch) It's all in the mental eye of the beholder. For one group of people, they might have decided, through rigorous thought and proofs, that earthworms have souls. To them, this is the truth. An outsider claiming that earthworms are not much more than living goo and have no souls at all obviously doesn't share that truth, even if that outsider has gone through a similar amount of proofs and thought. Poor illustration, probably, to what Tab was saying.
Even someone like Lori, who seems very sure of her faith, sometime down this road of life, she may come to some kind of realization that throws away much of her basis for her belief (sorry to single you out Lori, nothing personal, 'k?). So looking backwards in time, what used to be a very solid "truth" becomes shakey and uncertain. Hey, that's what personal growth is all about, right? Examining your long-held beliefs and testing them for seaworthiness?
Tiassa~ your comment about the bumpersticker reminds me of one of my Dad's favorite sayings: "Nobody gets out of here alive". When I was younger I found that to be an incredibly depressing statement. Now that I've escaped the throes of puberty (thank goodness THAT's over, huh?) I find it oddly reassuring. It sort of reminds me that this is ALL temporary, every damn thing. You most certainally can't take it with you, and you can't hang on to it here, so what's the big worry? Everything you "own" you are just taking temporary custody of, heck, probably 80% of the change in my pocket will still be in circulation long after I'm dead & buried. Definitely helps put things into perspective, for me anyway. Which of course brings up questions of afterlife, but during THIS life, everything is temporary. EVERYTHING. I like that, in a fatalistic kind of way.
Just this weekend I was thinking about "save the earth" and such. We're such selfish beings, that even when we're trying to do something "good", we're really just being self-serving. We're so concerned about destroying the planet - the planet doesn't give a hoot! We're trying to save OUR environment, nothing less. We want to rescue all the cute and furry animals for our own enjoyment, not for their own good. Even if us dumb humans manage to eradicate every living being from the crust of the planet, guess what? It doesn't matter to anyone but us and all the other animals we've killed off. The planet doesn't care, She'll still be here, volcanoes will still create new islands, rainstorms will still erode hillsides, earthquakes and hurricanes will still shape and change the shapes of the continents. We assume that since we're here, that this is all for us, that this is somehow the culmination of the Earth's design, when the "truth" is probably more like this is a phase of the Earth's development, and we just happend to spring up in the meantime. Does a landslide care if your house is the one being dumped into the river? Nope, it sure doesn't. Nothing personal, but the landslide is going to happen, and if you're dumb enough to build a house on a cliff, well...don't be surprised when it does happen to you, eventually that cliff is going to move, that's why there's a cliff there in the first place. Similarly, don't build in a flood zone and then whine when your house gets washed away. Mother Nature doesn't give a hoot who "owns title" to the land, it's Hers to do with as She feels necessary. It's like playing hopscotch on a freeway and then complaining when you get hit by an 18-wheeler.
Lori,
It is to answer the question that Boris refuses to answer, and that question is NOT how, but WHY.
Ok, I've tried to explain that WHY = HOW, and I tried, and I tried, but you still don't get it. Fine, how about a logical approach? You are committing a classical logical fallacy by making a circular argument (in other words, your question begs the question.) You are <u>assuming</u> that everything was created by "someone". Then you are asking why that "someone" created everything the way it is. Your answer: because everything was created by that "someone". Does that help any?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 27, 2000).]
Tab, Moon,
I contend that truth can NOT be subjective. Mathematically and scientifically, this does not make sense in reality. That is like saying that gravity is subjective, like if you chose not to recognize it, then it won't affect you. Or because you CHOSE to think that the effect of gravity is determined by how many skittles are in your belly, that just doesn't make it TRUE. Now truth, as anything else, IS subject to variables in circumstance. But the circumstance, the variables which are included are subjective, not the formula, or principle, or truth itself. I'm sorry, but saying that everyone operates within a different "truth" is absurd. We are all human, we are all the same God's children, and we all live on the very same planet that OUR God created for us ALL. It is IMPOSSIBLE that there is more than one spiritual truth. It just doesn't make sense.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Tiassa,
I haven't had a chance to look at the link you gave me yet, but I will. I have a question though...you say that you can't help but find fault in the faith since it's "execution" is so flawed. But what I see is that the faith STATES in no uncertainty that the execution WILL BE flawed, so doesn't that in essence SUPPORT the faith??????? I mean, one of the biggie things that strenthens my faith is the real evidence that I see all around me, the flaws, the SIN (hello), and yes, even in the church. The faith does NOT say that it fixes you, it saves you. It can only save you, if you think about it, if you need saving. If you weren't "flawed", then why would you even need saving? Being saved is NOT being "fixed". It's understanding that there is no "fix", not in this life anyway. See, you sound to me like you take the evidence that supports my faith, and use it to denounce yours. I don't get that. But I will read your link. Later.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Lori,
I'll try to give a better response in a bit, but my initial reaction to
The faith does NOT say that it fixes you, it saves you. It can only save you, if you think about it, if you need saving. If you weren't "flawed", then why would you even need saving? is that it's beside the point. What's the point of believing in anything if it's arbitrarily constructed? You once equated several pagan ideas to the notion that one can invent morality and God as they go. Well, welcome to the club. What is Infinity minus one, or one thousand, or one googol?
But, since it's been awhile since I've tried successfully to poll your faith, let me assert the following, intended for your response:
* God is finite
* God's will is not fixed
* God's knowledge is incomplete
Okay ... here's where we're hitting a snag 'twixt you and I. Simply, these statements all must be true in order for me to accept certain of the faith aspects you advocate--just about anything having to do with Creation, determinism/predestiny, or Satan falls into that category.
Now, my problem is that God, traditionally, is infinite, His Will is immutable, and his Knowledge is complete. In fact, for anything to be as universal as God is supposed to be, these traditional points must be respected. Else God may be subject to some condition which has authority over His actions.
None of this is a problem, to me. But you often like to say that yes, God is infinite, and immediately thereafter espouse a point requiring that God be finite. This is a long-standing obstacle to our ability to communicate harmoniously; I wish it weren't so, but thus far I have failed to communicate the importance of the consistency I'm advocating.
And then there's your ongoing, expressed sentiment, to which I will respond briefly, thus: Yes, Dear, we know that the faith is flawed, but the failure of the individuals holding that faith to really demonstrate that they give a rat's behind about anything but their own admission ticket to heaven seems to indicate that the philosophy motivating the faith is not sound enough to reconcile the vagaries which allow such apathy.
I don't care about what a book says God wants. I care that human life has a chance to fulfill God's purpose, and frankly, until the apathy of the faithful disappears, there's no grand redemption to the philosophy; only the arrogant assumption that people will believe, on their deathbeds, that they deserve redemption.
And that's just fine for them. I'm worried about the rest of the world that these individuals, who apparently reflect nothing of the nature of faith, will try to drag the rest of the world's individuals into the sordid dramas of godliness.
Now, I'm sure that there's more value to your post than my gut reaction has shown; as I said, I'll try to give a better answer later, that addresses the questions better.
See, you sound to me like you take the evidence that supports my faith, and use it to denounce yours. I don't get that.
You'll have to explain that to me; I cannot reconcile the syntax to gain any interpretation that makes sense to me. Apologies, there.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
tablariddim
03-29-00, 07:28 PM
Lori,
I'm not tryin' to be rude here, just stating a fact that we all know and which you've mentioned on a number of occassions. And that is that you are a prime example of subjective truth.
How is it, that most of us tend to view you as being an aggressive and retaliatory person through your postings and you have to write back and tell us, 'the truth' about what a really nice, soft (but not fluffy), gentle and kind person you are in 'reality'.
This happens often, so what's true in your reality and in yourself is only true to you (and partially to Flash, 'cause she knows you personally) because the persona you broadcast in your posts is nothing like the person behind it, apparently!
D'you see what I mean?
'Spiritual', is subjective by it's very nature and that's the spiritual truth.
Some actions can be true, you climbed a hill, I dropped the ball, you drank a beer, I scored a quarter etc
All the arts and sciences, well everything really, everything relies on certain truths which pertain to their function and deployment. So yes, there are many real truths, useful for many uses and we all get to share in some of them.
All the other truths, we make up and we like to believe them.
------------------
Oh my God it's the funky shit!!!
ltcmmdr
03-30-00, 03:46 AM
The truth depends on who you talking to. It's hard to tell what is truth and what isn't, especially when it comes to religion. To Christianity they have their own truths and to the Muslims they have their own truths. :confused:
------------------
everything is not what it
appears to be
Tab,
Wow. I am truly amazed. Just amazed. This forum is really beginning to resemble an episode of the twilight zone to me. Let me ask you something.....why, oh why, oh why, oh why, in the entire world, would you try to humiliate me AGAIN???????????
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
You know, for as judgemental as you all are out here, number one, you should go to church; those people would just LOVE you there, you'd fit right in. Number two, for as critical as you all are regarding my "cyber-personality", you would think that my personality and judgement thereof is the topic of this entire forum. Number three, I have been totally nice and polite, and let me ask you something....why? Why do I even try? Do I EVER get to stop hearing about what a delusional lying back-stabbing bitch I am? Fine Tab, Searcher, and everybody else....if you insist upon dwelling on this fine....here ya go......just to live up to your expectations and fill the mold that you just can't seem to let go of......your stupid stereotypical rantings of nonsense regarding my fucking personality....AS IF IT EVEN FUCKING MATTERS......YOU ALL CAN JUST EAT ME.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
Hi Moon,
I think that you may have misunderstood what I meant about there only being one truth. I did not say that there is only one interpretation of said truth, or that one person's or one group of people's interpretation of the truth is the truth. What I mean is that regardless of how we chose to interpret it, there EXISTS only one truth. If this were not so, we would all be living in little singular parallel universes, and we would all be subject to our own unique environments, which is just NOT the case. We are all the same on the inside, and not much different on the outside. We all bleed when we're cut, and cry tears when we're sad. We all live on the same planet, in the same universe, and we are all the same species; human. To think that we all just "dream up" our own spiritual world is non-sensical to me. The spirit world exists as it is, as God made it, and we all have a little different interpretation of it, based soley upon what we know as an individual. Just because our interpretation is varied, does NOT mean that the truth itself is varied. IT CAN'T BE, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BASED UPON ANYTHING I KNOW TO BE TRUE ABOUT THIS WORLD. This world just doesn't work that way. Physics is physics, and whether you are aware of the physical laws, or understand them, or interpret them correctly is irrelevant. The point is that regardless of how you as an individual understand things, in our limited knowledge, it has no bearing on what the actual true laws are and how they actually work, whether we understand it correctly or not.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
MoonCat
03-30-00, 12:21 PM
A quote from a song I've been addicted to for the last few weeks:
"...and all the truth laid end to end/is wider than the mind..."
Seeking the truth is beginning to seem like it's equivalent to walking on a treadmill. It's not the destination that matters, it's the journey, the quest that's important. Kind of like life itself, yes?
Love and light
~MoonCat
Tiassa,
You and your poetry, ugh. Would you mind interpreting that Blind Webster for me? I don't do poetry dude, sorry, I've tried, I really have, but to no avail. I don't get it usually, unless it's just so obvious you know?
To clarify about the faith thing. I have my faith, which is a set of beliefs, or an interpretation of the real thing, and everyone else has their own as well. None of these interpretations are 100% correct; I just don't think it's possible, as it's too all-encompassing in detail. BUT, that in no way shape or form means that you can't know enough to know for sure that Jesus is who He says He is and that you can have a personal relationship with Him, and then at that point, get the answers to anything you may want to know that is relevant to you and to God's will. So, do you think that Jesus is the Son of God come in the flesh or not?
What I meant about the difference between you and I is this, let me try to word it better...you look around in this world and you see sin and the effects of such, and in the church as well, and for some reason you deduct that since there exists sin in the organized Christian church, that the faith must be flawed. I look around in the world, and see the exact same things that you do, and am just as pissed and appalled as you are about it, and to me, the existance of this sin is evidence that the faith IS true. Why? Because that's exactly the whole point of the faith, is that we are all sinners. It's just inevitable. So why in the world does it surprise you to find sin in a church? That very fact supports the faith. And when I say faith, I do NOT mean one person's interpretation of it, including mine, but I mean the truth.
You talk of apathy on the part of Christians, and I guess I understand where you're coming from but, I am a Christian, and I'm going to share my predicament.....my atheist brother always says to me that I should go to church. It's so hilarious because he doesn't even believe in God, but sees a church as a nice-nice community get together "activity-oriented" type thing. Like a summer camp or a community center or something. I think that you've suggested that I join a church as well if I'm not mistaken. Now let me explain how that idea is ludicrous....I can't stand most church people, and I think it's safe to say they'd boot my ass out of there in about 2 seconds. The organized religion is the only reason that it took so long for me to get saved in the first place. If I was to join a church, then I would be subject to and have to conform to all of that judgement and condemnation and crap, and I don't believe in it. So tell me then, why would I join a church? So they can beat me down into some submissive judgement-soaked drone like the rest? So fine, I'm not joining a church then, unless I start my own.
So back to the apathetic thing.....I don't find that I'm apathetic, but I'm wondering if you could give me an idea of what it is that you expect a person like me to do exactly. See, I don't want to make this some agenda, or some political campaign or whatever. All I can see myself doing, and what I have done, is to focus on getting to know Jesus, and find His will in my life. If I can try to do that, and be semi-successful, it should keep me well-entertained and challenged until the day I die. But in the process, I can see that as He changes my life and me, that I automatically become a witness. But becoming a witness isn't even an "agenda". And then I would have to ask if you would hold me up to the same standards that you do other Christians, and what are those standards exactly? Because based upon what you've said, I can't help but think that you expect me to be some "fixed", or perfect person??? Please clarify. I can't be perfect you know? It's against my religion! LOL! But you know Tiassa, I have resigned from my job as an accountant, and I'm going to find a better calling; one that is of service in some capacity. Something that I can feel good about doing. Something that doesn't have it's entire basis in greed. I have reconciled with my father after years of no communication. I have almost saved my marriage, but not quite, but at least I've taken my share of the blame, and forgiven, and tried like I would NEVER have done before. I'm trying to do the right thing, no matter how large or small, or seemingly important or unimportant. Am I perfect at it? Well, just read the post I left Tab earlier; what do you think? But I AM trying, and I AM learning. Some habits are hard to break.
What did I say that made you think that I think that God is finite????????
Posture? That's fairly weak.
Wait a minute!!!!!! Light bub. How about this.....You believe in God, you just don't believe that a human can define Him???? Close? What about Jesus and the Bible though? I mean, do you think it's all fiction or what? Do you believe that there is a good and an evil that is inherently defined only by it's cause, and that it's affect is not recognizable as such by man. That's what I believe to be true (and not ironically, that's also what the Bible says is true as well). I don't think anyone, in particular "church people", and including myself, really have a good grip on identifying good vs evil, though I do believe the two influences exist. The identification process is what you tend to learn, but mainly through self-analysis. If you examine your own intentions, you can learn the difference and why. And then, maybe apply what you've learned to what you see in the world around you. How about that? Am I even getting close here?
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
[This message has been edited by Lori (edited March 30, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lori (edited March 30, 2000).]
tablariddim
03-30-00, 06:11 PM
Lori,
I just knew you were going to freak, ironic really ts :rolleyes:
I told you I wasn't intending to be rude, I've never actually being rude to you or anyone on this board for that matter. I just wanted to point out to you that 'truth' is subjective. And it was a perfect example.
When you say, "you can all just eat me", what, are you offering yourself on a plate for us to try or what? ;)
------------------
Oh my God it's the funky shit!!!
Tab,
I'm sorry, it's just that I would LOVE IT if I could open up a string around here and NOT read a discussion about my personality. I'm telling you clearly, I don't know how else to say it, that it's REALLY FREAKING ME OUT, so please stop. I do NOT judge other's personalities out here....I may chuckle at them occasionally, but I do not judge or make people out to be evil or untrustworthy or whatever, and I absolutely abhor the idea of someone who knows me so limitedly out here on a message board to be trying to draw these conclusions. I just don't know how else to put it......so just stop ok? There are plenty of other analogies that you can use. But since you started it here.....the analogy is a good one ok....and the answer is this....that many could have an opinion regarding said personality based upon this or that, but not a complete picture of the truth. This perception or opinion though is NOT the truth. Ok then, what is the truth? The truth is what it is, not what someone thinks it is. Is this making any sense at all? The truth is NOT subjective, in that I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam. What IS subjective is someone's INTERPRETATION of what I am based upon limited knowledge. Because knowledge is so limited to us humans, I don't even think that I myself know the TRUTH about what I am, only God can know that, because only He sees everything there is to see in me. Which is why He is the ONLY one qualified to be a judge see?
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
[This message has been edited by Lori (edited March 30, 2000).]
Lori--
But you sound exactly like church people ....
Okay, that requires some clarification. Your theories are interesting, and never let me say that Satanic manipulation of genes isn't good for fun, at least, until some new theological or historical aspect can fill in some of the gaps it leaves, but it's not wrong. Where you sound like "church" people, though, is in the way you regard your faith compared to others. You make the same assumptions of right as the "church" people, and talk (write) to people with the same condescending tone. You're dismissive of ideas foreign to your theology almost on a predictable cue, and your inability to admit that it might all be a crock tells me you're taking things too seriously in the same manner as the "church" people.
Okay ... once again, I'll try.
I look around in the world, and see the exact same things that you do, and am just as pissed and appalled as you are about it, and to me, the existance of this sin is evidence that the faith IS true. Why? Because that's exactly the whole point of the faith, is that we are all sinners. It's just inevitable. So why in the world does it surprise you to find sin in a church?
Okay: Joe the Average Person of Faith believes in the keys to his redemption, the quality and legitimacy of his faith, and that his interpretations are true. Now, Joe is a sinner, as we all are. Sometimes he's rude, sometimes he's insensitive, and sometimes the spirit is willing while the flesh is weak. But Joe knows he's a sinner, and instead of fearing Hell, and therefore taking out his own insecurities on the rest of society by supporting dumb laws and insulting people (since both are counterprodcutive within his faith structure), Joe takes the time to make sure that he not only doesn't make the same mistake twice, but that he starts addressing the method of the mistake. Sure, he was upset when he kicked the cat and dislocated it's hip. He won't do it again. But, unlike the people at Joe's "Church", he will remember the cat when he's angry, and not kick a dog the next time.
Now ... the difference between that and what I see in the sum result of modern, American Christianity is that the Christian, after repenting, will accidentally "sin" again, and kick the dog. Specifically, it's not the same sin, because last time it was a cat. Now, maybe Phyllis Schlafly isn't killing anyone, as the Inquisitors did. But she is still working to suppress ideas different from her own. It seems to me that the sin is quite the same, when you get down to the heartfelt motivations of the sinner.
So maybe Joe did kick the dog. And then he realizes that it's not about not kicking dogs or cats or children, but that it's about not kicking. Yes, we're all imperfect. But some of us aren't content to simply wallow in it and pray for divine forgiveness.
Okay ... The Blind Webster:
* It is not necessary to understand; it is enough to adore.
First I should ask if you agree with this? It's a reflection of a long-standing philosophy ... I might point to the text I cited from Piers Plowman, text B. But we all must begin somewhere; often, if we wait until we have the whole picture, the event has passed. The flip-side of this, though is that when we set out with incomplete knowledge, we cannot assume that our knowledge is either complete or definitive. There is also the question of what to adore; I can only offer this--that to "understand" would make the seeking of God unnecessary.
* The god may be of clay: adore him; he becomes GOD.
The writers of the Old Testament were aware of this. Whether a literal truth, an historical truism, or an allegory, the Commandment against graven images directly implies this awareness. We can look upon the Bible as a graven image: it is not God, but an abridgement thereof, a summary thereof, a compression thereof. But when we place our full faith in the words of the Bible, they become words of God. History demonstrates that graven images are rarely, if ever, arbitrary. They reflect primary factors in the lives of the devoted: Catal-Huyuk did not design temples to slug gods, or to banana gods--bananas and slugs are not part of the natural environment of Catal-Huyuk; instead, the deities reflect aspects of farming, which allowed permanent settlement in the first place. Also, it should be either accepted or rejected at this point that God is present in every object in the Universe; if one must reject such an assertion, there is no need to continue this vein of explanation.
* We ignore what created us; we adore what we create. Let us create nothing but GOD!
Western theology has created an image and applied it to natural forces. In this sense, people ignore nature by inventing "God" and saying that God is everything, and therefore nature is of God. Therefore, since we adore what we create, we should acknowledge this and understand that we are still working the godly miracle, as such. If all we are and all we have to work with are of and from God, then so it is that all we create will necessarily reflect those principles and limitations; we cannot fail to create in God's image.
* That which causes us to create is our true father and mother; we create in our own image, which is theirs."
Genetics ... acquired behavioral psychology ... We see inheritance, and pass it along; is God's punishment to the several generations for the sins of the father merely arbitrary, or a reflection of the heritage of the sin in question? "Mother" and "Father", in human terms implies family, which is a classification, and therefore a constraint. When we apply the sum of all humanity (and, if an evolutionist, all of organic life), we see the passing of culture and spiritual perspective from one generation to the next, as well as the physical/genetic. We are compelled to create because part of life's purpose is its own posterity. Thus, Life, which creates us, compels us to create; our act of creation sets the example of creation, and thus it is expected of the next generation. Now, whether creating life, or simply an event in the universe (a building, a ship, a process ....), those things bequeathed us by our predecessors will affect the outcome. We create in our own image, which is the image of our predecessors.
* Let us create therefore without fear; for we can create nothing that is not GOD.
I think this is apparent, if one accepts the stanzas preceding it.
And the precession is important. In an abstract sense, one may read The Blind Webster as a sort of logical progression, where the necessity of the following stanza depends on reconciliation of the current. Thus, if one does not agree with the first stanza, one need not continue. But perhaps the first, and then the second, and then the third reconcile within one's points of faith, but if the fourth does not, the fifth will not. But that's only one way of choosing to read it.
But mostly it speaks to the idea of some sense of separation between the divine and the mundane. How can God be within us if we fear/respect/drop to our knees in awe of Him Who is Out There Somewhere?
Watch Kathy Bates' performance in At Play in the Fields of the Lord. There's a bra-fitting scene that pretty much demonstrates the dichotomy blatantly; this God-fearing Christian missionary (Bates) is horrified at the God-given state of a South American tribe. Not their poverty, their illiteracy, or their lack of any but the most fundamental technology, but at their "unseemly" conduct--being naked and not having proper Christian weddings before reproducing. It seems to me that she's opposing God, who made this tribe this way. But that's because the God is separate from His creations in some abstract way, because God is apparently not inherent within creation, and therefore needs to be instilled in a person. The separation is what's important: if I hack a snake that's about to bite me (like I'm faster than a snake ... ;) ) I have not sinned against one of God's creatures, but survived one portion of the natural effects of God's creation: circumstances being what they were, it would come down to either the snake or me. Had God not wanted it that way, He would not have built it to be that way.
A theological wall that has puzzled a good many philosophers is that, while God is paradox in the abstract, He cannot operate in paradox as relates to the actual or real. I believe the forum touched on this a while back ... I had posited an idea from Brust (and others, I'm sure, before him) about truth, witness, and how many events actually occured; and someone brought up the idea of God making a stone that is too heavy to lift. (Mighta been you, but I'm not sure.)
Thus, while God can conceptually exist as a polarized duality, God cannot operate in that same sense.
I should end here ... I've been composing off and on in my spare time, and some of your issues really do deserve some more of my attention.
However, I would like to offer a couple of points, just as perspective:
* You and your Bible ... ugh! Would you mind interpreting it for me? I don't do propaganda. In other words, please tell me what is any more mysterious about The Blind Webster than the contents of your Bible? And mind you, at least one of your answers will probably require you to state some regard as to whether you regard the Bible literally, figuratively, both systematically, or both arbitrarily, or any other options I've left out.
* Also, (your post to Tab) ...
I'm sorry, it's just that I would LOVE IT if I could open up a string around here and NOT read a discussion about my personality. I'm telling you clearly, I don't know how else to say it, that it's REALLY FREAKING ME OUT, so please stop. Now I admit there's not a whole lot of gentle ways to say it, but might those discussions of your personality be a result of how you express it? Oh, wait, I forgot ...
AS IF IT EVEN FUCKING MATTERS......YOU ALL CAN JUST EAT ME. Okay, so it's just a joke and isn't an expression of your personality. I might also say that of your theology, then. It must apply generally, else it is an affectation and nothing more. To be honest, I would love to not address subject matter pertaining to your personality; I'm aware that it is an online persona and may well be a false representation. If that were the case, I can say nothing to respond except, why complain? If it is a true representation .... Well, then I have no response except to assess what I observe.
And I would love to eat you, except it probably wouldn't change the circumstances ... after all, it doesn't seem to fucking matter unless You, Lori, believe it true.
(Oh, that last li'l potshot was just a joke ... see?) :p
There's at least a few more things to address, but I must be along, now.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
(Edited against typos)
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited March 30, 2000).]
Lori--
One thing of which I grow weary of is answering your questions; frankly, for as many as you ask, you discourteously ignore those of others, even those that are more legitimate. I've actually been perusing topics in order to answer your question about how you are limiting God to a finite body.
* As a general idea, I will restate an old question at this forum: "If we say that God is something, what becomes those things which God is not?" We have to remember the bit about the stone too heavy to lift--God is not capable of paradox in some senses, but this is no limitation in itself. What is a limitation, a creation of a finite boundary, is the insistence that God must be found in one specific book. If God is truly what is spelled out in the Bible, then He is finite, because by such faith declarations, then, that God cannot also be the Triune Goddess, Buddha, or others. (FTR--I've never encountered this problem with the Triune Goddess, but that's only me.)
* This is from Jan. 3, 2000. I believe you were responding to Flash:
Ah, touche. But I AM in a position to know. Compare YOUR source to MY source. Mine is a life-changing faith that has saved people for years, changed their life. You know, the same source that little evil Mother Theresa had???? The assumption that your source is definitive in any way limits God for the same reasons above. I might mention that the greatest life-change of Christian faith is to end life, but why bother? The fact that you consider yourself, as an imperfect human being of faith (they are still imperfect, right?), to be definitively correct demonstrates that you have closed your mind to possibility outside of given constraints. Those constraints are finite, for sure. Furthermore, if you're imperfect, then how are you in a position to know, unless God is limited to the finite sphere of your living experience?
Part of the difficulty I'm having at the moment is simply this: I'm perusing back-topics looking for certain statements you made regarding the Devil, for one, and various observations you've offered on God Itself. I'm having trouble finding them, but only because so many of your posts are nothing more than vitriolic ventings in which you reassert the supremacy of the Bible and the ignorance of those who don't agree with you. Really, over the last 100 days, there's been a lot of them.
* Ah! Here we are ... March 8, to Boris from Lori:
This is not to say that this is the way God WANTED it to be, but given free will, He must have known that in the end, we would be worth it all.
Pretty flexible for Immutable Will. Or does God not have that, anymore?
* From March 9, from Lori to Boris (yes, it's irrelevant, but I noticed it and ....):
YOU WANT EVIDENCE MR. SCIENTIST? THEN PRAY, AND YOU'LL GET ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU'VE EVER WANTED. And if you don't, then you're a pussy, and I don't want to hear about it. So ... if Boris is a pussy ... does that make you a dick?
* The following, Lori, you posted to me on March 9, 2000, in Evolution vs. Creation:
Tiassa,
WHAT are you telling me???? Help me, I'm meeeeeeelllllllttttttiiiiiinnnnnnggg! Let me get this straight....
You know Jesus.
You know that He loves you, is your Creator, and your Saviour, and God.
You know that He is graceful, merciful, and loving, and forgiving.
You know that you are a terminally flawed "sinner", and that belief unto Him is your only salvation.
And you said, "No thanks, I'd rather go to hell."
?????????????????????????????????????????
When I responded last time, I thought that you were yankin' my chain. I didn't believe that you actually talked to Him. Based upon your "conclusion".
????????????????????????????????????????????
And you wonder why I said you're bent. And BTW, I meant that in the most loving way possible. I didn't mean to crap on your toast (which you really had me rolling with that one). Well, Tiassa, I can say this much....you're good for a laugh.
What exactly do you disagree with Jesus about? Why the defiance? Why the rejection? I should say how the rejection? Excuse the grammar, but HOW IN THE HELL MAN???????
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.
[This message has been edited by Lori (edited March 09, 2000).]
I've added boldface ... that's the point. But you've limited God by limiting the possibilities of my interaction to Jesus to two standards: Heaven and Hell. Quite the finite number of possibilities, there. If God is infinite, so are Its possibilities. Now, the reason I didn't excerpt this post is that I want to ask you what in that post is of any value? Is the only way you have to support yourself really to shout your point and create as much diversionary static as possible?
Although, in general, I'm willing to retract the notion that your view of God requires a finite God. What your view of God requires is a customized God. I mean, the problem is that I believe Christianity inherently limits God to finite existence when viewed in the contemporary regard. Think about it: this book, with finite pages and a finite number of letters and words, is the embodiment of infinity. How big is infinity to you? You've already suggested that God had to go through the creation process twice, but it's not that he screwed up the first time. Would you please, then, explain that chronology, or simply admit that you do not--you cannot--know these things about God?
I must admit you've protected yourself well with a flak-haze of abusive language. When I think of all the times I've read an idea of yours and let it go in favor of the idea at hand ... well, I must have been giving those phrases a whole lot of credit, because retrospect is not showing them to me. (FTR--No, I do not believe, nor do I wish to assert, that you are psychotic enough to mark my complaints and remove the relevant posts.)
But this perusal of your past posts has done nothing to change my sentiment of your view of God. The only reason that I'm willing to retract the idea that your God requires a finite God is that I know you will hand me that issue on a plate if I'm patient enough; it's inherent in most of your philosophy, because, as I've asserted, it's inherent to your faith. But since your faith tells you to see God as infinite, despite the number of constraints you bind Him with, that's really hard to demonstrate without getting as insulting as you like to be. But in general, there's a start here for you to chew on.
Now ... I've given a good deal of thought to this ... actually, for a couple of weeks. And I've come to a realization, Lori. Essentially, I have three options in dealing with you: I can continue to answer your questions for you, despite your abusive complaints; I can hound and harrass you the way Truestory liked to do on occasion (I just read a round she had with Flash where she simply wouldn't shut up about Flash being possessed); or I can just ignore you until you have something of worth to say.
Frankly, I'm sick of your rudeness. I mean, it's one thing if you're stubbornly standing on something you can back up, but your dismissiveness shows either a spiritual shallowness or an intellectual deficiency.
Posture? That's fairly weak.
Nice dismissal. It's nice to see that you are unwilling to consider the subtleties of a human body that you can objectively observe in order to justify a psychiatric episode. I mean, really ... do you think that your spine is just there for your convenience, to take up space? Uh-oh, that ringing in my ears that started with that pinched nerve MUST be the Devil!
But I do need your advice. I need to know what to do. Should I simply ignore you? Should I speak/write to you in the same tone and manner as you write to others? Should I continue to hedge as close as I can manage to civility, continuing with the periodic outburst while you continue to berate people? Really ... I'm interested in what you want.
I mean, I hear you lamenting about this abuse you've managed to endure--hell, I always thought that talking nicely to people was a good way to avoid the necessity of lament. But since you're unwilling to do what Job couldn't, which is endure God's plan for him, go on lamenting if you want. However, I'm quite sick and tired of your underlying rhetorical theme, which is to criticize another's approach, abuse said individual verbally, ignore the relevant questions that person asks, and then beg for more clarification.
I've never burned a Bible before--thanks to you, I don't have to. Your tongue is reducing God's kingdom to ashes before my very eyes. So my one question to you is: Is it worth it?
Ah ... I have an idea .... Henceforth, I shall not address your actual question until I'm absolutely certain to what I am responding. Your failure to clarify I shall regard as an expression of your lack of interest or enthusiasm.
On a less delicate note, I am officially ready to begin recommending Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell for anyone who's looking for a decent read. It's mostly found in secondhand shops, but, Lori, I would love your opinion on the book if you ever get around to it, because it is able to make a finite God work well enough within the context.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
(Edits ... typos, typos, typos)
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)
[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited March 31, 2000).]
Truth and why do we seek it? I believe the answer is very simple and very basic and once it is accepted then all the philosophies, economic systems, their successes and failures, become understandable.
Understand first the basics of the evolutionary process – survival. If the wrong path is taken then extinction is the result. Now consider whether survival would be possible if we were not able to detect or actively seek truth. Some examples –
This substance looks like it might taste nice, but someone said it was poisonous (the truth), but I don’t care about that. Uh-oh I’m dead.
This furry looking animal might make a nice playmate. Someone said they were dangerous. Uh-oh I’ve been eaten.
This mugger won’t harm me, I prayed to God last night to protect me, uh-oh I’m dead.
Communism encouraged a trust in a father-like state protector and discouraged the individual instinct for survival. This seems very similar to most religious doctrines.
Religious beliefs appear to be incompatible with survival and hence, I would claim, incompatible with truth. For example, when faced with potential natural disasters many will pray and put their trust in a god to protect them. This is a fatalistic tendency seen throughout history.
Our strong survival instincts will ensure we continue to seek the truth and at present that is primarily through scientific investigation. As yet there is no evidence to show the existence of gods or an afterlife and such claims should rationally be seen as false (lacking in truth).
I predict that those who cling to religious beliefs, despite the lack of believable evidence, will eventually become extinct. Much the same way that communism is dying out.
Note also that strong emotions tend to hide truth. Overwhelming love often allows us to ignore otherwise obvious flaws that then hurt us later. Anger, jealousy, and other negative emotions are aberrations of rational judgement that conflict with truth. Lori talks about ‘what we know in our hearts’ these are no more than misleading perceptions.
Survival of the fittest still works well for our continued existence and truth plays a dominant role. To tell a lie or to commit a ‘sin’, tend to work against our survival. Society usually punishes us when we are discovered in such aberrations by imprisonment or execution. If our ‘evil’ deeds are not discovered then we often suffer from pangs of guilt which lead to stress, anxiety, loss of efficiency, accidents, carelessness, and early death, some would say bad karma killed them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.