← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · NeoNietzsche
Thread ID: 4485 | Posts: 97 | Started: 2003-01-16
2003-01-16 14:03 | User Profile
For Americans/Greater-Judeans are of three basic ideological/theological orientations and cultures:
1) "Weenies" are upper-middle-class egalitarian-utopian moralists of caring and compassion - grown intellectually sloppy through decades of Jewish/Weenie cultural dominance, such that ideological opposition thereto is never engaged but merely peremptorily dismissed. Intellectually strong in a vocational sense, Weenies are physically and emotionally weak and cowardly, except where fanatical indignation and self-righteousness are provoked by ideological opposition. Given their typical intellectual gifts, Weenies ought to know better than they have been taught by the Jews, but they cannot face the abyss that otherwise looms behind the loss of their ancestral faith.
2) "Morons" [with apologies to TD] are lower-to-middle-class Christians, basically, who tend to have a more realistic view of this world than the Weenies, whose Utopian/Kingdom-of-God expectations, rather, have to be realized in this singular opportunity, before eternal oblivion, of enjoying such an existence. Morons now tend to dominate the public arenas of mere debate, since the Jews/Weenies are now smugly entrenched in power and need not authentically argue over that which is now inextricably in place. Morons are admirably strong, good-natured, and authentically courageous - but have never failed to believe a historic Jewish lie when told one that they wanted to hear.
3) "AIDS" cases (Arrested Ideological Development Syndrome) are your Libertarians - who have begun to think about the logic of ethics but are unable to see, or must emotionally reject, the implications of their own logic. They refuse to recognize the historicity and politico-economic logic of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, which finds all advanced societies factually and necessarily in the hands of aristocratic and/or theocratic elites. They cannot grasp that to argue over form-of-government and the supposed variety of political "systems" is to discuss a choice of tools and weapons rather than ethics and morality. AIDS cases fail to understand that the issue is not quantity or quality of government - rather it is a question of whose government it is. For all governments are governments of men - a "government of laws" is a pathetic illusion.
2003-01-16 16:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 16 2003, 08:03 **For Americans/Greater-Judeans are of three basic ideological/theological orientations and cultures: **
Don't forget number 4:
4) "NeoNietzsches" Those sage elders so rare among us who stand outside the normal constraints of space and time and possess Shirley MacLaine-like transcendental inner wisdom. Wisdom that grants the ability to pronounce the existence, death and resurrection of the God-Man, despite two millenia of Western Christendom's finest minds to the contrary, as a mere "Jewish lie."
Heavens no! Don't forget number 4. It's what we all would only dream of becoming if we only did not shy away from being arrogant and rude.
2003-01-17 00:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 16 2003, 10:48 ...Wisdom that grants the ability to pronounce the existence, death and resurrection of the God-Man, despite two millenia of Western Christendom's finest minds to the contrary, as a mere "Jewish lie."
TD,
1) What justifies belief that any of the Jews of various conflicting doctrines once-upon-a-time told the "truth" in so uncensored an enterprise as their own biblical self-promotion - where all secular history finds them mastering the "lie" (as in ludicrous accounts of first-century events in Judea, the false conversions of later centuries, the historic exploitation of fractional-reserve banking, tax farming, and intermediary functions in general, the relatively recent promotion of the Hollywood History of the Second World War, the "Holocaust," the Frankfurt School of thought and Boazian anthropology, etc.)?
2) What is the theoretical implication of a unique event, i.e., what is the role of replication in formulating "truth" which does not involve dogmatic preconception? Think hard about this one.
2003-01-17 01:31 | User Profile
1) Quite simply, faith. A leap of faith if you will, and all of man's historical research and philisophical postulating cannot go any further than that.
2) Not quite sure what the question is here, but I'll have a go at it. There are unique events and there are unique events. Christ, from virgin birth through the miracles to resurrection from the dead, is where we find the supernatural within the historical, the eternal in the temporal. The Divine in First Person. Most assuredly this is a paradox and can only be approached through faith. But again, in the end when it comes to 'ultimate Truth,' all we are left with is a leap of faith. The only question is what one has faith in and whether or not they are willing to submit to that authority.
2003-01-17 03:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 16 2003, 19:31 ** 1) Quite simply, faith. A leap of faith if you will, and all of man's historical research and philisophical postulating cannot go any further than that.
2) Not quite sure what the question is here, but I'll have a go at it. There are unique events and there are unique events. Christ, from virgin birth through the miracles to resurrection from the dead, is where we find the supernatural within the historical, the eternal in the temporal. The Divine in First Person. Most assuredly this is a paradox and can only be approached through faith. But again, in the end when it comes to 'ultimate Truth,' all we are left with is a leap of faith. The only question is what one has faith in and whether or not they are willing to submit to that authority. **
TD,
1) Faith does not justify belief. Faith is a term for indulgence of the predisposition to believe. Nothing is sweeter than hearing the lie which we wish to be told.
2) This profession of "faith" is in concepts which elude experience and precede history and to which the latter has been ostensibly adapted, courtesy of Jewish prevarication. Even if it is conceded that, for example, Yeshua bar Yusef was actually "resurrected from the dead" in some medically material sense, this supposed event would have no implication or meaning for other than those who have preconceived the nature and significance of the event out of internal requirements and who have projected such elements thereupon.
2003-01-17 18:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 16 2003, 21:03 **Faith does not justify belief. Faith is a term for indulgence of the predisposition to believe. Nothing is sweeter than hearing the lie which we wish to be told.
**
Nay, nothing is sweeter than intellectually justifying the denial of an ultimate truth which may make demands upon us. That's the well-traveled road, my friend. I don't think I said faith justified belief. In matters of ultimate truth, belief requires faith. As an existing individual, trying to approach same objectively is a fool's errand.
This profession of "faith is in concepts which elude experience...
Of course. If it was not, it would not be faith.
Even if it is conceded that, for example, Yeshua bar Yusef was actually "resurrected from the dead" in some medically material sense, this supposed event would have no implication or meaning for other than those who have preconceived the nature and significance of the event out of internal requirements and who have projected such elements thereupon.
If a tree falls in the woods with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Are you somehow trying to make me admit that the signifcance of Christ's resurrection from the dead is only significant because of Jewish interpretation of that historical event? I have no problem with that. Christ was a Jew. I don't think that is subject to debate. Nevertheless, I can think of no other individual in history that was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven, so I would think that would be rather remarkable to anyone, Jew or Gentile.
Credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I might understand) - Anselm (1033-1109)
2003-01-17 22:55 | User Profile
TD,
1) We now have it that the "belief" of which you speak lacks justification at your hands. You posit that such belief rather requires "faith," thus suggesting the intrinsic desirability of the belief. This further suggests the principle that the mere desirability of a belief is the justification for it. You introduce the as-yet empty phrase "ultimate truth" to characterize this "belief," leaving the discussion suspended at the point of your believing whatever you desire to believe.
2) The tree falling unwitnessed makes sound objectively - but not subjectively. Whatever became of the post-crucifixion person or corpse of YbY has objective significance or implication as a mere historical datum. The event has subjective significance for those born with the genetic inheritance of the ancient agriculturalists' awe at the annual resurrection of plant life, ritualized in the "mystery" religions of which Christianity became the dominant example (thanks to Saul's chutzpah in adding potent Jewish messianism to the mix).
Credo quia absurdum [or] credibile est, quia ineptum est better captures the process.
2003-01-17 23:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 17 2003, 16:55 ** The event has subjective significance for those born with the genetic inheritance of the ancient agriculturalists' awe at the annual resurrection of plant life, ritualized in the "mystery" religions of which Christianity became the dominant example (thanks to Saul's chutzpah in adding potent Jewish messianism to the mix).
**
Also, the significance of the ancient propitiatory blood sacrifice of the ancestral hunt must be noted in the interpretation of the crucifixion itself.
2003-01-18 02:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 17 2003, 17:35 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 17 2003, 16:55 ** The event has subjective significance for those born with the genetic inheritance of the ancient agriculturalists' awe at the annual resurrection of plant life, ritualized in the "mystery" religions of which Christianity became the dominant example (thanks to Saul's chutzpah in adding potent Jewish messianism to the mix).
**
Also, the significance of the ancient propitiatory blood sacrifice of the ancestral hunt must be noted in the interpretation of the crucifixion itself.**
I don't know why you would be surprised by observing thematic parallels between ancient myth and the historical account of Christ's life, much less use that as a reason to discount Christian truths. In his book [u]Miracles[/u], C.S. Lewis addresses this at length.
Death and re-birth - go down to go up - it is a key principle. Through this bottleneck in Nature, this belittlement, the highroad nearly always lies... The pattern is there in Nature because it was first there in God...The total pattern...is the real Death and Re-birth: for certainly no seed ever fell from so fair a tree into so dark and cold a soil as would furnish more than a faint analogy to this huge descent and re-ascension in which God dredged the salt and oozy bottom of Creation...The Corn-king is derived (through human imagination) from the facts of Nature, and the facts of Nature from her Creator; the Death and Re-birth pattern is in her because it was first in Him. On the other hand, elements of Nature-religion are strikingly absent from the teaching of Jesus and from the Judaic preparation which lead up to it precisely because in them Nature s Original is manifesting Itself.
All very fascinating stuff!
2003-01-18 02:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 17 2003, 19:17 **This is a very hurtful comment to me, Tex. Why shouldn't these fine people be called Wintermutes? **
WM,
My apologies for not thinking of my favorite pagan. :D
Thank you for injecting some levity into the thread, so aptly split off from it's mother topic by our very own "King of the Topic Split," Frederick William I. It's just like me to get sucked-into deep theological debate with what I presume is an atheist and a pagan like yourself. :) I do enjoy such things, despite making no pretensions of having it all figured out and documented for ready presentation. To this day I still get very internally hung-up on the objective vs. the subjective, for example. But all in all, I do find it edifying and very worthwhile, if only because it makes me think, study and contemplate what is truly important.
2003-01-18 03:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 17 2003, 20:37 I don't know why you would be surprised by observing thematic parallels between ancient myth and the historical account of Christ's life, much less use that as a reason to discount Christian truths.ÃÂ In his book [u]Miracles[/u], C.S. Lewis addresses this at length.
It is not evident that there has been some pretext offered by my remarks for imputing the awkwardness of "surprise" to my observation about parallels. Quite the contrary ought to have been the genuine interpretation offered in Christian forthrightness, given the course of the discussion to this point - where I am now unsurprisingly charged with thus "discoun[ting] Christian truths" in the same breath.
What should be evident at this point, however, is that the parallels between the "truths" of Christianity and nature are merely figurative and analogical, rather than literal and material. Sin and salvation, for example, are interior, subjective phenomena affecting only the believer invested in ultimate metaphysical consequences, where the exterior, objective world of actions-have-consequences is ecumenical and material in its impact.
For, instructed in humility and charity in avoidance of the sins of pride and self-seeking, the Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world. Thus the enduring effectiveness, in this latter day of mastery of theocratic technique, of manipulative appeals to the moral authority and priority of the world's victims, whose dictates are the conscientious Christian's commands to sacrifice himself in war and peace. To return to the points with which the thread began, I bluntly ("rude[ly]") refer to this characteristic behaviour as "moronic."
2003-01-18 04:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 18 2003, 02:53 **Thank you for injecting some levity into the thread, so aptly split off from it's mother topic by our very own "King of the Topic Split," Frederick William I. **
Thank you Tex, even though more properly you should have called me Kaiser of the split. I'll let your little Amerikaner impertinance pass though. ;)
2003-01-18 04:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 18 2003, 03:49 What should be evident at this point, however, is that the parallels between the "truths" of Christianity and nature are merely figurative and analogical, rather than literal and material.ÃÂ Sin and salvation, for example, are interior, subjective phenomena affecting only the believer invested in ultimate metaphysical consequences, where the exterior, objective world of actions-have-consequences is ecumenical and material in its impact.
For, instructed in humility and charity in avoidance of the sins of pride and self-seeking, the Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world.ÃÂ Thus the enduring effectiveness, in this latter day of mastery of theocratic technique, of manipulative appeals to the moral authority and priority of the world's victims, whose dictates are the conscientious Christian's commands to sacrifice himself in war and peace.ÃÂ To return to the points with which the thread began, I bluntly ("rude[ly]") refer to this characteristic behaviour as "moronic."**
I doubt too many will have the patience to wade trhrough this indeterminable thread, but I must ask basically and in all honesty, to who these characteristic words of pagan skepticism of Festus (Acts 26:24) properly applies, Paul, or you and your Avatar Nietszche.
Paul you are out of your mind.ÃÂ Your great learning is making you mad!
2003-01-18 04:38 | User Profile
**Many early followers of Jesus had no idea what to make of the crucifixion, since their hopes were for a military messianic figure who would fit the prophecies of Isiah. Early death could not be squared with that particular historical hope.
Paul, with his particular interpretation of the crucifiction ["fiction"?], not only sold Gentiles on an otherwise obscure Jewish sect, he spoke to Gentiles in a way which could not be ignored: the King has given his blood so that life can continue.
At this point, I've learned alot about Pagan mysticism. The claim made by anti-Semites that 'Christianity' was intended by the Jews as a weapon against Gentiles is the least true explanation I can find. The utterly Hellenized Paul brought the God man into the heart of Judaism, and frankly almost converted them to a Judaicized Or[ph]ism. If the Church hadn't killed off all the Gnostics, it might have worked, too.
...Also, the Jewish prevarication has little to do with the development of Christianity. The desire of Constantine the Great to hold a tottering empire together is historically more important than anything Jews did, to create 'prevarications'.**
My perspective is that the proto-Bolshevik Saul/Paul cleverly confused and conflated the notions of Messiah and Savior, multiply enhancing and broadening the appeal of Christianity to gentiles in turning their backs upon a short-lived "World" thus to be left to enduring mastery by Saul's brethren.
2003-01-18 04:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jan 17 2003, 22:17 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 18 2003, 03:49 What should be evident at this point, however, is that the parallels between the "truths" of Christianity and nature are merely figurative and analogical, rather than literal and material.ÃÂ Sin and salvation, for example, are interior, subjective phenomena affecting only the believer invested in ultimate metaphysical consequences, where the exterior, objective world of actions-have-consequences is ecumenical and material in its impact.
For, instructed in humility and charity in avoidance of the sins of pride and self-seeking, the Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world.ÃÂ Thus the enduring effectiveness, in this latter day of mastery of theocratic technique, of manipulative appeals to the moral authority and priority of the world's victims, whose dictates are the conscientious Christian's commands to sacrifice himself in war and peace.ÃÂ To return to the points with which the thread began, I bluntly ("rude[ly]") refer to this characteristic behaviour as "moronic."**
I doubt too many will have the patience to wade trhrough this indeterminable thread, but I must ask basically and in all honesty, to who these characteristic words of pagan skepticism of Festus (Acts 26:24) properly applies, Paul, or you and your Avatar Nietszche.
Paul you are out of your mind.ÃÂ Your great learning is making you mad! **
Looks like the "question" is rhetorical.
Would you, alternatively, like to stand some manly ground here, FW?
2003-01-18 05:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 18 2003, 04:50 > Paul you are out of your mind.ÃÂ Your great learning is making you mad!**
Looks like the "question" is rhetorical. Would you, alternatively, like to stand some manly ground here, FW?**
You sound like the misguided freethinker Frederick the Great my son.
You are talking to bearer of the holy sword of the Teutonic Knights my son, which we carried with the Bible in the other hand, to reach with the sword of the spirit or of the hand. The hand at last was always our forte - the Teutonic Knights were never that good at preaching, even to the sane.
Nietszche was crazy.
2003-01-18 05:19 | User Profile
You are talking to bearer of the holy sword of the Teutonic Knights my son, which we carried with the Bible in the other hand, to reach with the sword of the spirit or of the hand.ÃÂ The hand at last was always our forte - the Teutonic Knights were never that good at preaching.
How are you at riding around on a miniature automobile, honking a large horn, Dad?
Nietszche was crazy
Good reason to preserve yourself from being sullied by comprehension of anything he ever wrote.
2003-01-18 05:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 17 2003, 19:17 > Credo quia absurdum [or] credibile est, quia ineptum est better captures the process. **
Was this Tertullian? **
Yes, as popularly quoted and as he expressed the matter himself.
2003-01-18 06:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 17 2003, 19:17 > 2) What is the theoretical implication of a unique event, i.e., what is the role of replication in formulating "truth" which does not involve dogmatic preconception?**
I'm with Tex on this one, N, the question doesn't make any sense.
**
To speak of a "Resurrection" as other than a curious historical datum, there must have been multiple/replicative instances of such in order to have formed a pattern of associated phenomena supportive of generalizations about "Resurrections" in which implications might thus be legitimately recognized (as per, for example, the alleged consequent "salvation" of believers in the Cross, were that other than merely an inward development). Otherwise, only pre-conceived notions about a singular Resurrection (or about any other individual, putatively anomalous, phenomenon) can give meaning to the event.
For example, TD recites the Gospel claim that "Jesus" "ascended to Heaven," as if one could have any but a cartoonishly and merely imaginative grasp of such an "event" - even had it, in some sense, actually happened. What, lacking a priori interpretation, would even an eyewitness be entitled to make, in terms of implications, of a spontaneous dematerialization by a "Jesus," or of, say, a vertical ascent of same into the distant atmosphere? And this is not even to ask after the basis of a conceptualization of "Heaven."
Christians/Morons/Americans are so accustomed to cartoonish impressions of historical accounts, courtesy of theocratic exploitation of the multitude's limitations, that these are not readily recognized for what they are.
2003-01-18 06:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 17 2003, 21:28 ** Atheist? You must have slept through your sensitivity training. I affirm piety towards to the gods and the One as the highest principle of life. **
I wasn't referring to you as the atheist, wintermute. Rather our fellow member, NN.
Sorry if that was unclear. Please don't send any evil fauns after me or anything.
2003-01-18 06:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 17 2003, 21:49 **It is not evident that there has been some pretext offered by my remarks for imputing the awkwardness of "surprise" to my observation about parallels.
**
You're right. Surprise was the wrong word there.
Sin and salvation, for example, are interior, subjective phenomena affecting only the believer invested in ultimate metaphysical consequences, where the exterior, objective world of actions-have-consequences is ecumenical and material in its impact.
No disagreement there.
For, instructed in humility and charity in avoidance of the sins of pride and self-seeking, the Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world. Thus the enduring effectiveness, in this latter day of mastery of theocratic technique, of manipulative appeals to the moral authority and priority of the world's victims, whose dictates are the conscientious Christian's commands to sacrifice himself in war and peace. To return to the points with which the thread began, I bluntly ("rude[ly]") refer to this characteristic behaviour as "moronic."
I understand your point. I've read Nietzsche, particularly [u]The Gay Science[/u]. It was of interest, but then I kept hungering for something deeper. Thankfully that is when I stumbled onto Kierkegaard and everything then began to make some sense to me. But to each his own, I like to say. Here is a quote you can think on:
What Tarquinius Superbus said in the garden by means of the poppies, the son understood but the messenger did not. - Johann Georg Hamann
2003-01-18 07:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 18 2003, 00:43 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 17 2003, 21:49 It is not evident that there has been some pretext offered by my remarks for imputing the awkwardness of "surprise" to my observation about parallels.ÃÂ
**
You're right. Surprise was the wrong word there.
Sin and salvation, for example, are interior, subjective phenomena affecting only the believer invested in ultimate metaphysical consequences, where the exterior, objective world of actions-have-consequences is ecumenical and material in its impact.
No disagreement there.
For, instructed in humility and charity in avoidance of the sins of pride and self-seeking, the Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world.ÃÂ Thus the enduring effectiveness, in this latter day of mastery of theocratic technique, of manipulative appeals to the moral authority and priority of the world's victims, whose dictates are the conscientious Christian's commands to sacrifice himself in war and peace.ÃÂ To return to the points with which the thread began, I bluntly ("rude[ly]") refer to this characteristic behaviour as "moronic."
I understand your point. I've read Nietzsche, particularly [u]The Gay Science[/u]. It was of interest, but then I kept hungering for something deeper. Thankfully that is when I stumbled onto Kierkegaard and everything then began to make some sense to me. But to each his own, I like to say. Here is a quote you can think on:
What Tarquinius Superbus said in the garden by means of the poppies, the son understood but the messenger did not. - Johann Georg Hamann**
I must say in response, TD, that the tone of your assessment at this point is quite other than that with which you first reacted to the presentation of my trinity of "Americans".
Gone is the (to again be blunt/rude) wounded petulance of the initial reaction, now replaced with concession and eqanimity.
Your account of this transition would be of interest.
2003-01-18 14:32 | User Profile
That the Jewish messiah and pagan Savior were fused by Paul is true. But why should you interpret this as Juda[is]m subverting Gentile society?
Because of Saul's resume as a self-appointed persecutor of "Christians" combined with his "conversion" to a "religion" of his own device. Marcus Eli Ravage, though with tongue-in-cheek and in taunting terms, made a plausible case that Saul recognized the demoralizing effect of "Christianity" on a nation in preparation for rebellion, and that the same Saul, in the guise of Paul, employed his own version of this potential psych-war device against the Romans via the Greeks.
Whatever Paul's blowback effect on the Jews might have been may be considered as collateral damage. Did the Jews intend the consequences for Judea of the intentional rebellions against Rome?
He took your view, that the infinitely powerful and clever Jews had concocted a ruse which destroyed Classical civilization.
If I may impose upon you as your consultant on my own views, I will qualify this remark by discarding "infinitely powerful and clever" and by portraying the demise of the Western Roman Empire as a natural occurrence which Paul facilitated with a bit of poison which congenitally damaged the emerging Western Culture.
So what you mean is an unprecedented event. Uniqueness is not required.
We are speaking of a unique event [The "Resurrection"] as posited by TD and the Christians.
And while the first occur[e]nce of an unprecedented event will not exhaust its possible range of meanings, we could plausibly assume that, for the ancients, a man rising from his own tomb was indicative of the fact that he had conquered death.
This is to commit the error of which I spoke by implicitly and imaginatively investing the phrase "conquered death" with more purported information than is already given by "rising from his own tomb".
If the conquest of death is contextually linked to a spiritual practice (and Jesus was a teacher), then at the very least we might assume that the Resurrection is a pretty good indication that this teacher has something worthwhile to listen to. Rising from the grave, even absent the link to a spiritual tradition, indicates that our current understanding of death is mistaken.
To repeat an earlier explanation, even had there been an actual "rising from the grave" in some evident and authentic fashion, we are nevertheless left with a mysterious void in our knowledge amidst the "mistake" to which you refer. And I reproachfully repeat the caution, above, about investing information.
The phrase 'curious historical datum', which might be well applied to a town of dwarves, or a rain of toads, can hardly be said to apply to someone who rises from the grave. That's a paradigm buster.
Not when subjected to disciplined epistemological analysis.
If all you mean is that the whole of Christian theology can be derived from the Resurrection, well, I'm sure most Christians will agree with you.
What I mean is that there is nothing to be derived, without dogmatic preconception, from the "Resurrection," whatever its weight in Christian theology.
2003-01-18 15:48 | User Profile
I seem to hear, in all this (very interesting) discussion, a ââ¬Ëholeââ¬â¢ that I would address from a round-about doorway... All this discussion, with NeoN trying to draw Tex and (not-so-)Mute into seeing the ââ¬Åscientific methodologyââ¬Â of attributing cause and meaning to a singular event (however emotionally freighted it be, to those who believe it ââ¬Ëprovesââ¬â¢ something that they ââ¬Ëverifyââ¬â¢ by ââ¬Ëfaithââ¬â¢). (You need multiple data points to form a true 'generalization.' Any conclusion you draw from a single, or singular, data point is NOT valid scientifically, no matter how valid it FEELS from a faith standpoint!)
It reminds me of the newest way to ââ¬Ëprove godââ¬â¢ (or is it SNEAK god?) in schools ââ¬â that of intelligent design. The premise: ââ¬Åif there is intelligent design, then there must be an intelligent designer.ââ¬Â The LEAP that follows this is ââ¬â ââ¬Åand the intelligent designer must be god!ââ¬Â :o
And thatââ¬â¢s where ââ¬Åfaithââ¬Â and ââ¬Åbeliefââ¬Â interfere with and taint scientific method. The ââ¬Ëidentityââ¬â¢ of the designer is in no way intimated by the design! The designer COULD be god, but could just as easily be some UFO-jockey come to play in a petri dish. The growing organisms, no matter what THEY ââ¬Ëbelieveââ¬â¢ about their designer, have no more evidence for one than the other...
Wintermute: Fauns are extremely gentle creatures. Plus you have to take the special medicine before you can see them. Can I GET some of this medicine from you? I feel... sick! :D
2003-01-18 15:57 | User Profile
**Wintermute: And while the first occurance of an unprecedented event will not exhaust its possible range of meanings, we could plausibly assume that, for the ancients, a man rising from his own tomb was indicative of the fact that he had conquered death. If the conquest of death is contextually linked to a spiritual practice (and Jesus was a teacher), then at the very least we might assume that the Resurrection is a pretty good indication that this teacher has something worthwhile to listen to. Rising from the grave, even absent the link to a spiritual tradition, indicates that our current understanding of death is mistaken. ** Ah, but what of those folks, in coma, buried, and later "resurrected" -- do they constitute some more data points? The Victorians, was it, even created devices for 'dead' people to 'call for help' if they were buried alive, while seeming dead (or if they... returned... from death?).
A man rising from his tomb may or may NOT be indicative of the fact that he had conquered death. It may only indicate that he was rightly or wrongly 'buried' (and it's a less... stressful... burial in a cave-tomb than in a buried box!) and came out later. The attribution of miraculous return from the dead may make no more sense than a cargo cult building stick-planes.
(Forgive me Tex, I do NOT mean to insult you or your belief systems. I know that your faith is an important part of who you are, and while I am able to discuss this-all as a matter of academic interest, I realize to you, it's a discussion fraught with emotional and existential landmines!) :(
2003-01-18 16:01 | User Profile
Clearly, Jesus rising from his tomb does not prove or even provide much evidence that he was the Son of God, or defied the laws of physics.
However, the event is nonetheless symbolic of the Christ's victory over death, which he offers to all believers. If one has faith that Jesus is the Son of God, one too may have victory over death and eternal life. What it means to have eternal life--this is something we cannot truly know.
2003-01-18 16:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 10:01 **Clearly, Jesus rising from his tomb does not prove or even provide much evidence that he was the Son of God, or defied the laws of physics.
However, the event is nonetheless symbolic of the Christ's victory over death, which he offers to all believers. If one has faith that Jesus is the Son of God, one too may have victory over death and eternal life. What it means to have eternal life--this is something we cannot truly know.**
Interesting transition, unacknowledged, between the epistemological assessment and the merely literary and fanciful.
I suppose this is harmless enough, as far as it goes.
Do you, however, believe in universal justice/human rights and the entitlement of victims of injustice to recompense by non-victims?
And what of Jewish mythology, ancient and modern, have you discarded - and on what basis?
2003-01-18 16:23 | User Profile
**Darkeddy: Clearly, Jesus rising from his tomb does not prove or even provide much evidence that he was the Son of God, or defied the laws of physics. However, the event is nonetheless symbolic of the Christ's victory over death, which he offers to all believers. If one has faith that Jesus is the Son of God, one too may have victory over death and eternal life. **
Ah, but rearrange this slightly and it is more coherent in a logical sense: [list]Clearly, Jesus rising from his tomb does not prove or even provide much evidence that he was the Son of God, or defied the laws of physics or achieved victory over death. [/list] "If one has faith that Jesus is the Son of God," then it is FAITH and not science! And one may have all the "faith" one wishes, to construct a belief that "one too may have victory over death and eternal life." But none of that proves anything except that faith allows you to choose to believe in whatever floats your boat. The scientific proof that there is victory over death is NOT provided by FAITH!
If it is taken as symbolic of a CHOSEN belief, and not as inerrant word of god (if such exists), then I'm all for it. But DON'T try to sell me that it's 'real' or history or proven fact. It's a symbol of a chosen belief! Not science! (And sadly, I would offer that I CHOOSE not to believe as you-all do... I think that 'convincing' oneself that this is true, while it may indeed offer much-needed comfort and support is also, to me, just deluding oneself in order to have an (emotionally) easier life.)
2003-01-18 16:32 | User Profile
First of all, I would not want to identify the symbolic and literary with the fanciful. Liberal theology arising out of the 19th C. German 'higher criticism' has made a powerful case for understanding Scripture in terms, that, while 'extra-historical,' do not denude Christianity of its truth content or motivational significance.
The Christian view is that one ought to 'turn the other cheek.' Evil is washed away through Christ's blood, not earthly retribution. 'Vengence is mind, sayeth the Lord.' That said, for the sake of others, it is often right to punish wrong-doers oneself or get recompense for crimes.
The question of universal justice and individual rights is separate from the question of how transgressions of these ought to be dealt with. I hold that there are absolute standards for universal justice and individual rights, which, as a Christian, I view as flowing from God's will. What these rights involve and our the nature of our duties to gurantee them practically--these are further, more involved issues.
As far as Jewish mythology goes--I think I would need to know more about what you are talking about. I will say that Christianity makes use of a good deal of Jewish mythology and symbolism, as found in the Old Testament, but profoundly transforms the meaning of this Jewish content.
2003-01-18 17:09 | User Profile
First of all, I would not want to identify the symbolic and literary with the fanciful.
What is the distinction?
Liberal theology arising out of the 19th C. German 'higher criticism' has made a powerful case for understanding Scripture in terms, that, while 'extra-historical,' do not denude Christianity of its truth content or motivational significance.
"Truth" without reference to history/experience is merely pre-conceptual and is thus fanciful.
Evil is washed away through Christ's blood, not earthly retribution.
Define "Evil," please.
That said, for the sake of others, it is often right to punish wrong-doers oneself or get recompense for crimes.
Define "wrong-do[ing]" and "crime," please.
I hold that there are absolute standards for universal justice and individual rights, which, as a Christian, I view as flowing from God's will.
Specify these standards, please.
As far as Jewish mythology goes--I think I would need to know more about what you are talking about.
Let's start with the Hollywood History of the Second World War. What myths do you identify therein?
2003-01-18 17:28 | User Profile
The Hollywood history of WWII--well, there is the first Indiana Jones movie. This gave Nazi's some interesting press as explorers and manipulators of the un-known. And the scence were the Nazi melt is a childhood favorite.
Then there is Band of Brothers--the capture of Hitler's Eagle Nest is wonderful, definelty furthered German-American relations.
Beyond that, it's hard to say. These days, Hollywood has got its myth so mixed up I can't make heads or tales of them. The message of 'blond people bad, Jews good' is fairly consistent, but that's propaganda, not myth.
As far as the definitions you want--I am afraid I not terribly interested in providing them. Not to say they aren't interesting to define. I think you can probably guess something of what I mean about symbol vs. the fanciful.
As far as your claim, "Truth" without reference to history/experience is merely pre-conceptual and is thus fanciful"--here I am neither sure what you mean nor do I understand why one would see Christian scripture as divorced from history and experience.
2003-01-18 18:23 | User Profile
**The Hollywood history of WWII--well, there is the first Indiana Jones movie. This gave Nazi's some interesting press as explorers and manipulators of the un-known. And the scence were the Nazi melt is a childhood favorite.
Then there is Band of Brothers--the capture of Hitler's Eagle Nest is wonderful, definelty furthered German-American relations.
Beyond that, it's hard to say. These days, Hollywood has got its myth so mixed up I can't make heads or tales of them. The message of 'blond people bad, Jews good' is fairly consistent, but that's propaganda, not myth.**
Sounds like you're a youngster, unfamiliar or unimpressed with "Why We Fight," Hollywood's intra-war presentation of the Judeo-Bolshevik FDR regime's bald lie about a Nazi-Japanese design to engulf the world in the inky blackness of jack-booted fascist conquest and enslavement of all that is virtuous. One could go on at length about innumerable lesser presentations then and since, but I will let you go ahead and comment on the "truth content" of Exhibit A, as you see it, and on how such a montrous imposture could be imposed on other than a nation of intellectually and morally disarmed morons, predisposed to being led into transforming and extrapolating traditional international aggression into fanciful universal "injustice" and illimitably voracious "Evil".
As far as the definitions you want--I am afraid I not terribly interested in providing them. Not to say they aren't interesting to define.
Then you avoid the lesson involved in the demonstration of your inability to do so.
I think you can probably guess something of what I mean about symbol vs. the fanciful.
We dignify the fanciful by calling it symbol.
As far as your claim, "Truth" without reference to history/experience is merely pre-conceptual and is thus fanciful"--here I am neither sure what you mean nor do I understand why one would see Christian scripture as divorced from history and experience.
Re-read your own remark about 'extra-historical'.
2003-01-18 18:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 16:32 First of all, I would not want to identify the symbolic and literary with the fanciful. Liberal theology arising out of the 19th C. German 'higher criticism' has made a powerful case for understanding Scripture in terms, that, while 'extra-historical,' do not denude Christianity of its truth content or motivational significance.
I must absolutely disagree with you here, at least in regards to its truth content Modern manipulative techniques may try to preserve some of its sociological influence, albeit in a much different form
**The Christian view is that one ought to 'turn the other cheek.' Evil is washed away through Christ's blood, not earthly retribution. 'Vengence is mind, sayeth the Lord.' That said, for the sake of others, it is often right to punish wrong-doers oneself or get recompense for crimes.
The question of universal justice and individual rights is separate from the question of how transgressions of these ought to be dealt with. I hold that there are absolute standards for universal justice and individual rights, which, as a Christian, I view as flowing from God's will. What these rights involve and our the nature of our duties to gurantee them practically--these are further, more involved issues.**
Basically I agree with you here though. They are involved issues, and I doubt we will resolve them here, as far apart as we are on presuppositions.
2003-01-18 18:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 18 2003, 12:30 ** > Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 16:32 First of all, I would not want to identify the symbolic and literary with the fanciful.ÃÂ Liberal theology arising out of the 19th C. German 'higher criticism' has made a powerful case for understanding Scripture in terms, that, while 'extra-historical,' do not denude Christianity of its truth content or motivational significance.
I must absolutely disagree with you here, at least in regards to its truth content Modern manipulative techniques may try to preserve some of its sociological influence, albeit in a much different form **
I take it that you think liberal theology denudes Christianity of its truth content. I will probably agree that it can, but I am do not think the focus on symbol over historical fact has to do this. What is it that you object to, exactly?
2003-01-18 18:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 18 2003, 12:23 ** > **The Hollywood history of WWII--well, there is the first Indiana Jones movie.ÃÂ This gave Nazi's some interesting press as explorers and manipulators of the un-known.ÃÂ And the scence were the Nazi melt is a childhood favorite.ÃÂ
Then there is Band of Brothers--the capture of Hitler's Eagle Nest is wonderful, definelty furthered German-American relations.
Beyond that, it's hard to say.ÃÂ These days, Hollywood has got its myth so mixed up I can't make heads or tales of them.ÃÂ The message of 'blond people bad, Jews good' is fairly consistent, but that's propaganda, not myth.**
Sounds like you're a youngster, unfamiliar or unimpressed with "Why We Fight," Hollywood's intra-war presentation of the Judeo-Bolshevik FDR regime's bald lie about a Nazi-Japanese design to engulf the world in the inky blackness of jack-booted fascist conquest and enslavement of all that is virtuous. One could go on at length about innumerable lesser presentations then and since, but I will let you go ahead and comment on the "truth content" of Exhibit A, as you see it, and on how such a montrous imposture could be imposed on other than a nation of intellectually and morally disarmed morons, predisposed to being led into transforming and extrapolating traditional international aggression into fanciful universal "injustice" and illimitably voracious "Evil".
As far as the definitions you want--I am afraid I not terribly interested in providing them.ÃÂ Not to say they aren't interesting to define.
Then you avoid the lesson involved in the demonstration of your inability to do so.
I think you can probably guess something of what I mean about symbol vs. the fanciful.
We dignify the fanciful by calling it symbol.
As far as your claim, "Truth" without reference to history/experience is merely pre-conceptual and is thus fanciful"--here I am neither sure what you mean nor do I understand why one would see Christian scripture as divorced from history and experience.
Re-read your own remark about 'extra-historical'. **
--'As far as the definitions you want--I am afraid I not terribly interested in providing them. Not to say they aren't interesting to define.'
'Then you avoid the lesson involved in the demonstration of your inability to do so.' That was lovely--I mean, you could use that in a Hollywood script. Perfectly true, except insofar as you imply that my inability to give complete and final 'definitions' means that I can simply not 'define,' say what I mean by evil.
Also, I should add that I meant I wasn't interested in providing definitions now, in this forum. Really, anything you could actually talk about in a univeristy doesn't really me interest me as OD topic.
--Yeah, 'Why we fight' hasn't exactly graced by DVD player recently.
--Your comments on 'Exibit A' and 'monstrous imposures' seems to have gone over my head or otherwise failed to connect.
--I have looked over my comments about the 'extra-historical.' Probably it would be wise here to distinguish what I am talking about--going beyond treating Christian Scripture as historical fact--and what you are talking about--divorcing the meaning of Scripture (or is it just 'Truth'?) from the historical experience of Christians. With this distinction in mind, perhaps you could return to my claim that 'Liberal theology arising out of the 19th C. German 'higher criticism' has made a powerful case for understanding Scripture in terms, that, while 'extra-historical,' do not denude Christianity of its truth content or motivational significance.'
2003-01-18 18:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 18:43 I take it that you think liberal theology denudes Christianity of its truth content. I will probably agree that it can, but I am do not think the focus on symbol over historical fact has to do this. What is it that you object to, exactly?
Well Christianity is first and foremost a religion, which if the symbols are to have any meaning, must be understood as such.
Higher criticism of the old liberalism basically denuded Christianity, for themselves and those agreeing with them, of such transcendent religious content. Their philosophy was not a religious one, approaching Christianity as involving questions of the revelation of God, but rather that of cultural anthropology, approaching it solely as involving the experiences of men.
The "symbolic" approach to Christianity by the new liberalism, involving the use of symbols or connotation words of concepts stripped of their historical content, to create a quasi-eastern like mysticism, is in terms of transcendent truth questions theological/rhetorical sophistry.
2003-01-18 19:12 | User Profile
While I agree that the 'higher criticism' has often had the effect you describe, I see no reason to believe it always ends up transforming Christianity from a religion to a mysticism to be studies through anthropology, not theology. One can deny that Scripture is historically accurate while still believing it tells the truth about the need to believe in Christ. While I don't myself view the NT as historically inaccurate, I can accept views that do as properly Christian, religious ones. Again, even as many such so-called 'Christian' views are not at all Christian.
2003-01-18 20:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 19:12 ** One can deny that Scripture is historically accurate while still believing it tells the truth about the need to believe in Christ. **
If you don't believe the scripture is historically accurate, how can you accept what it says about Christ? For that matter, apart from the scriptures, who is Christ?
That's the problem the new theology has always tried, unsuccessfully, to meaningfully address.
2003-01-18 20:30 | User Profile
I suppose the liberal theological could answer that Scripture was not really intended to present fully-accurate historical facts, but rather to provide the general outlines of story about a historically existing individual (not all the proper details) and a set of theological truths about this Son of God.
2003-01-19 04:15 | User Profile
**Dark eddy: I hold that there are absolute standards for universal justice and individual rights,
and later:
I am afraid I not terribly interested in providing them. Not to say they aren't interesting to define.**
IF you have absolute standards, and you can not, at the LEAST, define your standards for justice and rights, then how can you say anything that is more than merely random opinion with no basis? If you canââ¬â¢t lay out your standards for ââ¬Åuniversal justice and individual rights,ââ¬Â then how can you justify whatever you say about anything?
Dark eddy: 'Vengence is mine,ââ¬â¢ sayeth the Lord. That said, for the sake of others, it is often right to punish wrong-doers oneself or get recompense for crimes.
These are self-contradictory. How do you apply your absolute standard to letting God pay back except sometimes when you pay back? What is your absolute standard for deciding who is a wrong doer or who deals with him? (Does God give you that dividing line between you doing it and you leaving it to Him or do you get to make it up?)
Can you see, Darkeddy that by ducking the question of what your definition of your absolute standard you are calling into question the basis of every position you state?!
2003-01-19 04:55 | User Profile
I didn't say that I couldn't define standards for justice. I claimed I wasn't interested in doing so now, in this forum. I have a variety of reasons for not wishing to do so. However, I don't wish to discuss these either. (Rest assured it's nothing personal, just has to do with what I feel is approrpriate for me to write about on OD.)
As far as the issue of letting God being the ultimate judge but also punishing misdeeds when appropriate: the distinction has to do with one's intention. 'Vengence is mine,' I take to refer to the idea that God alone is truly able to punish misdeeds at the level appropriate to them. Humans should not seek to usurp this role. However, humans are right to punish misdeeds when doing so serves some function useful to us. For example, if someone steals your car, punishing the thief is the right thing to do because it shows that you wont let people abuse you and it may also make the thief and others like him from commiting further crimes.
I don't see how not providing my ultimate standards for justice calls into question every statement I make. People can have different reasons for adhering to a particular moral principle--or for believing in the rightness of particular moral aim, such as furtherthing white nationalism--without agreeing on the ultimate ground for such principles and aims. You, for example, might believe offer the belief that whites are genetically superior as a reason for WN (I have no idea if this is your belief). Another, who is a Christian Identity type, might offer the belief that whites are God's chosen people. And yet the two of you could both agree that current US governmental policies are anti-white. Now there might come a time when an appeal to more fundemental principles is needed to elucidate the nature of a disagreement about the nature of WN or the best way to further it. However, one can simply take these things as they come, and offer higher-level principles as it becomes more necessary or useful to do so.
2003-01-19 05:41 | User Profile
**Darkeddy: And yet the two of you could both agree that current US governmental policies are anti-white. Now there might come a time when an appeal to more fundemental principles is needed to elucidate the nature of a disagreement about the nature of WN or the best way to further it. However, one can simply take these things as they come, and offer higher-level principles as it becomes more necessary or useful to do so. ** hhmmmm, very good point. And yet, when discussing the kinds of topics we discuss here, it would be useful to know what underlies your statements -- other than faith -- because if you (if one) is willing to short-circuit the discussion to "here is my position because I believe it," then I doubt there's much else to discuss on the topic...
I don't see how not providing my ultimate standards for justice calls into question every statement I make. People can have different reasons for adhering to a particular moral principle--or for believing in the rightness of particular moral aim, I guess I think that if you are going to make a statement about how something should or shouldn't be, you should also be willing to offer up the basis (or reasoning) for your position. Else what's the point of discussing it?
2003-01-19 05:58 | User Profile
What statements have I made about how things ought to be that you feel need additional justification? You asked some questions about defining 'justice,' but there were in reponse to my claims that there are universal standards of justice that flow from God's will. However, it claim that such standards exist is to say nothing in particular about how things ought to be.
2003-01-19 11:42 | User Profile
Here's your Cath-O-Jews making their play for America.
All they will, or can ever get is america, wouldn't have purchase on that except for de Bushers.
They think they are the moensch, by God, and they will control you or kill you. Tell you what your words mean, what you think, how you are reaction to what they say, and if you have any questions, you can kiss the Pope's ring.
A little weak on is the Holy Spirit stuff, though. They do anti-semitic good though!
Wasn't Yusef, mentioned by the darkone back there somewhere one of the FBI plants that put Sheik Rachman up to bombing the WTC in '93?-- helping out by sweetening the bomb size to get a bigger kill, like JOhn Doe, or somebody, did for McVeigh at the Alfred R. Murrow federal building in Oklahoma City April 19 of that year? You think the darkone has any inside dope on these?
Well, the U.S. constitution's God is spelled with a G, whatever your pet theological theories and confessional compulsions might be. Thats not "D", as in "Deus", nor "Y" as in Yaweh, or anything else. Its Protestant, 98% of the signers, you can look it up. If your name wasn't in that pot, there is a question whether you ought to try to stay here anymore. I hear Nat Turner has come back and set up a clonejesus website for the real dark ones. Bill the Butcher might have to lend them a hand if any more tarot flippers start shooying American -- or even americans -- in the back again 'round '04 time.
Even us GreaterJudeo weenie morons might find a Cath-O-Jew GOP-GOD Republican or two to whack off on.
Nature provided two ways human reproduce (speaking of replication): sexual intercourse and communication. Thats it. Throw in guns, you don't get reproduction. You might get replication. Maggots do that. Of course, they need some dead meat.
2003-01-19 12:08 | User Profile
"The tree falling unwitnessed makes soundobjectively -- but not subjectively. (quote neonich, above)
This is incorrect. The word "sound" communicates the quality of sense exerienced by humans as a result of the stimulation of the ear-membrane by waves, from a source of ommision, such as a tree falling.
If there is no sentient observer (I suppose squirrels "hear" something *subjectively* -- but it wouldn't be what we call "sound", exactly, I suppose -- does anyone know what squirrels experience?), there is no sound.
Similarly -- one could add -- the wine, after being properly blessed by a Catholic priest at mass, does not "*objectively* turn into Jesus' actual blood, as they believe. That's just on the *subjective* side. But the confusion about what these terms mean, in light of modern (post-1648) knowledge is the same. Protestants aren't saddled with that superstition. They discovered oxygen. Replaced the theory of occult essences underlying sense-qualities, on which the doctrine of transsubstantiation depends, if it is to be defended by reason. Otherwise, of course, it can be believed on sheer incredudlity (not: "faith"-- thats somethng else, again). Anyone can believe anything they want. But they can't believe superstitious twaddle and call other people who know what they are talking about prejudiced. Thats not the way it is.
One wonders how many priests dare try to conduct a mass properly, to see if it would really happen. That takes something on the inner side, present only as a gift of grace -- "Hold your gun on 'im! by God, we'll get blood from that wine!"? Don't think so. And, no, one doesn't really go about proving grace to anyone, particularly those headed for oblivion. It just is. but not for all. takes something on the inner side. they don't sell it at the Grace building downtown.
I was on a board this summer at the WP, this guy "CHUTZ" logs in, starts explaining to the nice lady I was having a conversation with what de Jeesus was. Well, I straightened him out.
Jesus was a Jew only on his mother's side. As to his father's -- you would have to believe what he told the disciple Thomas, I suppose, to get an inkling. That virgin Mary stuff is pretty wild, isn't it? Sort of like converting wine into blood by saying the right words right?
Nobody has to believe in those little spiritual conceits to be saved. Trust me.
2003-01-19 13:43 | User Profile
"The tree falling unwitnessed makes soundobjectively -- but not subjectively. (quote neonich, above)
This is incorrect. The word "sound" communicates the quality of sense exerienced by humans as a result of the stimulation of the ear-membrane by waves, from a source of ommision, such as a tree falling.
If there is no sentient observer (I suppose squirrels "hear" something subjectively -- but it wouldn't be what we call "sound", exactly, I suppose -- does anyone know what squirrels experience?), there is no sound.**
Please consult your dictionary for an authoritative correction of this popular misconception as to the definition of "sound".
2003-01-19 15:13 | User Profile
WM,
Looks like we have much ground to go over again, but I think we have a problem with your self-assessment which must be dealt with first:
**NeoN is not trying to draw me into seeing 'scientific methodology'. That is a misconception. Rather, NeoN and myself are engaged in a comparison to see whose "disciplined epistemological analysis" is longer and thicker. In these sorts of contests, I never lose, nor am I 'drawn' anyplace I do not wish to go.
...Depends on the conclusion. Even NN admits that a single authenticated resurrection does give us valid knowledge about the inadequacy of existing ideas, though we both agree that the nature of nescience remains for investigation. Plus, single counterexamples are sufficient to blow an entire worldview out of the water. How many times was the Michelson-Morely experiment replicated? Seems just once was sufficent to banish the idea of 'ether' forever.**
This latter observation is incorrect, both in the example and in the principle. The initial reaction to the MM experiment produced the "Fitzgerald Contraction," which assumes- rather than rejects - an ether, movement through which is held to cause a compensatory contraction of the interferometer in the imagined direction of motion. Lorentz adopted this concept, adding his own parallel belief in physically real electronic contraction and time dilation/mass accretion to produce the Lorentz Transformations. Einstein "banished" the ether based on a priori considerations, still in dispute, claiming not to have even heard of the MM experiment while deliberating upon the implications of constant "c". The ether, in various configurations, remains an element of scientific conceptualization of the cosmos, implicitly or explicitly, assertions to the contrary by defenders of conventional wisdom notwithstanding.
Neither in this specific case nor in the general case are "single counterexamples sufficient to blow an entire worldview out of the water." Science encounters anomalies all the time and has to dismiss most of them as unresolved glitches in the course of procedure. Occasionally, however, the glitches are replicable - as in the black-body experiments which led Planck to quantum theory - the important point being subsequent replication of the "glitch". Had the discrepancy between theory and experimental result happened only once despite attempts to replicate it, that would have been the end of the matter, there being no implication for theory.
"Even NN admits that a single authenticated resurrection does give us valid knowledge about the inadequacy of existing ideas, though we both agree that the nature of nescience remains for investigation."<
This did not constitute an "admission" - it was, rather, an assertion that, even were we to have (which obviously we could not, regarding the event in question) an (in some sense) authenticated resurrection/anomalous event, we would have a mysterious void in our knowledge without affirmative implication for a specific theoretical modification thereof. Thus a single, vaguely specified (R/r)esurrection has nothing of the quality imputed to it by proponents, for lack of this affirmative implication (despite the negative implication of an anomalous occurrence). I say again, WM, that you commit error when you invest phrases with more than is there - as when you now pretentiously but tritely speak of "valid knowledge" regarding the inadequacy of existing ideas (in simulated responsiveness to A's point about the derivation of new ideas) when all that we have beyond the curious specifics (data) of the event is the very same evident "inadequacy [incompleteness] of existing ideas [theories]" - upon which incomplete theories we nevertheless continue to rely, absent a succedaneous theory.
2003-01-19 16:03 | User Profile
As evidence of Paul's Hellenization, I would offer that he hated Jewish law, which he constantly referred to as a 'curse', and that he was extremely influential in ending the requirement for circumcision. Without making any definitive conclusions about his experience or beliefs, which I think are currently unrecoverable, I humbly submit to you that his persecutions of "Christians" and his conversion to a religion "of his own device" are not compelling reasons to think he was primarily a Jewish agent of subversion, but rather a 'curious historical datum' who is unrepeatable, and therefore uninterpretable in a final sense.
I have always taken Saul/Paul's Hellenization for granted and never thought of it as forming an obstacle to Judean nationalism for a man of his sophistication. I, for example, am a "Hellenized" National Socialist sympathizer. I agree as to the difficulty with imputations of motive.
Also, modern Jews, who as you know are very sensitive to these areas, hate Paul. He is commonly referred to as an anti-Semite, and Hyam Maccoby, one of Paul's principal modern day biographers, is absolutely apoplectic on the subject.
I am a National Socialist sympathizer, held in evident high regard by every person of Jewish background of my acquaintance and friendship. One's motives are not always on the surface. One notes that Jews do not typically practice good judgment in evaluating putative "anti-Semitism".
Think about how sensitive modern Jews are to 'supercessionist' strands in Christian thought. All of that begins with Paul.
Marxism began with Marx's denunciation of the Jews (if I may take a slight liberty). So much for Jewish "sensitivity" where it really counts.
I agree with this [radical recharacterization, by NN, of NN's views as characterized by WM], although I will retain my own counsel as to which of us is better informed on the nature of your views.
Thank you for that notice. I will, then, anticipate the necessity for further corrections.
[More, epistemologically, later]
2003-01-19 18:35 | User Profile
Catholics, Jews and "atheists" don't define what America was, has been or is. Please see my correcting discussion of this attempt at political soul rape.
First they'll define you, then they will splay you like a catfish carcass. Model was Hitler and the Jews They get to be the Jews this time around. Poisoners. Traitors. little caesars.
2003-01-19 18:43 | User Profile
> This is to commit the error of which I spoke by implicitly and imaginatively investing the phrase "conquered death" with more purported information than is already given by "rising from his own tomb".**
Sheer sophistry. You argue like a logical positivist. I thought the 'historical datum' in question was a Resurrection, the truth or falsity of which we had momentarily bracketed. If our curious historical datum is a resurrection, then we have new information about our current idea-complex, "death". If the datum is a premature burial, then we have an indi[c]tment of contemporary diagnostic procedures. Your original question, what is the value of a one time event, can be answered, I think, but now you're altering the event in question. Don't conflate truth claims about the Resurrection with the question of whether or not a real Resurrection would have clear implications.**
The 'historical datum' (which should be referred to in the plural) is the event as would have been recorded in its multiplicity of sense impressions by a historian. If this historical data depicts what is purported (or now vaguely posited for the sake of argument) to have been a (R/r)esurrection, we, as yet, do not "have new information about our current idea-complex, 'death'" in the sense of having implications other than negative ones for current theory - we merely have anomalous data (yet to have specific implication for new and other theory even if authentically anomalous) which may or may not be replicated and theoretically assimilated by later events. Absent those later events, the anomalous data remains such, with no theoretical implication beyond the suspicion as to the incompleteness of our current theory - upon which theory we continue to rely for lack of a superior alternative. Science deals in best theories - not perfect ones. You appear to continue, without warrant and despite cautions, to know what a "real Resurrection" is, asking only whether testimony purporting to confirm its having "happened" was honest ("truth claims"?). If thus I understand your objection and caution, you merely confirm my point about pre-conception of the "Resurrection," without justification of Rationalist epistemology as thus applied. You then fail to understand that the "one-time-event," as you would imaginatively conceptualize it, and its "alteration" as attributed to me, are, respectively, a cartoon and the event as apprehensible. Hence the necessity for alteration/correction of your perspective, based upon the presumptive exclusion of cartoons from epistemological propriety. In principle, you can neither properly conceptualize, a priori, nor thus confirm, ex post facto, a putatively unique event that is not merely a reconfiguration of familiar elements. Hence the "conflation" you proscribe is unavoidable and the distinction you make illusory. You are reduced to claiming a "mystical" connection to "reality" in this regard and cannot claim the endorsement of reason.
[More to come]
2003-01-19 20:26 | User Profile
> To repeat an earlier explanation, even had there been an actual "rising from the grave" in some evident and authentic fashion, we are nevertheless left with a mysterious void in our knowledge amidst the "mistake" to which you refer.**
I don't argue with this. If the Resurrection actually occur[r]ed, in an evident and authentic fashion, that still leaves us with the question "what is the nature of our 'mistake' about the idea-complex 'death'. However, you can't deny that a verifiable (once again, bracketing truth claims) Resurrection accomplished by a spiritual teacher who has made falsifiable truth claims about his practices would at least invite investigation into the area in question, in other words, later researchers could repeat the experiments and injunctions of said teacher, and then tally up the level of successful replications. My main point here is that the value of a one time event lies in the demand to replicate it. That's why I used the word 'unprecedented' rather than 'unique'.
It's like cold fusion. First, some spectacular successes, followed by a long string of failures leading to its current 'crank' reputation. But recently, there have been some inroads made, and CF is back on the front burner. As to its actual status, I can't say. But the injunction to investigate, for me, is a major part of the value of an unprecedented event.**
I have to refer to the previous comments wherein the point was made that one cannot speak with legitimate clarity about (the/a) "(R/r)esurrection" and its having "happened" - hence my constant qualification (as quoted above, which you did not include in your restatement) of this concession (made for the sake of the argument) with the terms "some" (fashion/sense) or "vague" in reference thereto. It is not evident that even this "concession" must be made regarding YbY, and, even granted it, one cannot go on to properly speak of the "verifiability" of the "Resurrection" - we would have merely posited "some"-thing of the sort - and would have, upon its ostensible occasion, only anomalous historical data yet to be replicated in verification of new theories. Absent this replication, our spiritual teacher would be yet without credentials inviting investigation of his practices.
But you are welcome to replicate "practices" for our edification - I was of the impression, however, that the "Resurrection" is supposed to have been, in certain vital respects, a one-time-for-all-time "event," and will accordingly suffer, in perpetuity, the defects of rational accreditation to which I have alerted you.
> > **ÃÂ The phrase 'curious historical datum', which might be well applied to a town of dwarves, or a rain of toads, can hardly be said to apply to someone who rises from the grave. That's a paradigm buster. **
Not when subjected to disciplined epistemological analysis.**
So, after the analysis, an actual resurrection is no more weighty than a town of dwarves. I beg to differ. There are aspects of existence on which epistemology itself rests. What will you use to investigate those?**
You again make too much of my concession in regard to "actuality". As explained above, the actuality is merely vaguely posited, and is evidenced merely by anomalous data which may or may not be replicated and assimilated. Failing the latter development, which it never is with these sorts of quasi-mythological things, the old theory remains in place un-"busted".
Epistemology rests upon experience of the acquisition and transmission of "knowledge". I rely upon experience to investigate experience, in order to create an operationally effective interaction therewith. This obviates, of course, time-wasting, circumlocutory, nonsensical explorations of the "ground of being".
> What I mean is that there is nothing to be derived, without dogmatic preconception, from the "Resurrection," whatever its weight in Christian theology. **
Well, I'm also very hostile to dogma, Christian or Logical Positivist, as the case may be. How can you say that there's nothing to be derived without preconception, when the Resurrection was subjected to quite an excruciating debate in the early centuries of the Empire? The contested meanings were deductions, not preconceptions. And just the sort of debate you'd approve of, I'd think - thousands were butchered. Why, just in the one decade after Nicea more Chistians were killed by Christians than had been killed by those awful Romans in the whole three centuries prior! It's wrong to think of Christians as weaklings, NN. Their doctrines were forged in oceans of blood.**
The contested meanings were thus because the pre-conception from which they were derived was, as explained earlier, necessarily without the clarity which would permit the firm exercise of logic.
Please refer to my opening remarks in regard to "Morons" re Christians.
2003-01-20 03:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 16 2003, 08:03 ** For Americans/Greater-Judeans are of three basic ideological/theological orientations and cultures:
1) [u]"Weenies"[/u] are upper-middle-class egalitarian-utopian moralists of caring and compassion - grown intellectually sloppy through decades of Jewish/Weenie cultural dominance, such that ideological opposition thereto is never engaged but merely peremptorily dismissed. Intellectually strong in a vocational sense, Weenies are physically and emotionally weak and cowardly, except where fanatical indignation and self-righteousness are provoked by ideological opposition. Given their typical intellectual gifts, Weenies ought to know better than they have been taught by the Jews, but they cannot face the abyss that otherwise looms behind the loss of their ancestral faith.
2) [u]"Morons"[/u] [with apologies to TD] are lower-to-middle-class Christians, basically, who tend to have a more realistic view of this world than the Weenies, whose Utopian/Kingdom-of-God expectations, rather, have to be realized in this singular opportunity, before eternal oblivion, of enjoying such an existence. Morons now tend to dominate the public arenas of mere debate, since the Jews/Weenies are now smugly entrenched in power and need not authentically argue over that which is now inextricably in place. Morons are admirably strong, good-natured, and authentically courageous - but have never failed to believe a historic Jewish lie when told one that they wanted to hear.
3) [u]"AIDS" cases[/u] (Arrested Ideological Development Syndrome) are your Libertarians - who have begun to think about the logic of ethics but are unable to see, or must emotionally reject, the implications of their own logic. They refuse to recognize the historicity and politico-economic logic of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, which finds all advanced societies factually and necessarily in the hands of aristocratic and/or theocratic elites. They cannot grasp that to argue over form-of-government and the supposed variety of political "systems" is to discuss a choice of tools and weapons rather than ethics and morality. AIDS cases fail to understand that the issue is not quantity or quality of government - rather it is a question of whose government it is. For all governments are governments of men - a "government of laws" is a pathetic illusion. **
Aside from the 'Greater-Judean' stylings, this sounds relatively on target to me. But apparently NN wants to link these points to claims about the Jews 'lying' about Resurrection? Given that the Jews today are understood to either not be descendents of Jews in Jesus time, or (my view) descendents of Jews who failed to see the truth of the Resurrection, what does discussion of the supposed propensity to deceive of contemporary Jews have to do with the Jews who wrote the NT?
2003-01-20 13:14 | User Profile
Aside from the 'Greater-Judean' stylings, this sounds relatively on target to me. But apparently NN wants to link these points to claims about the Jews 'lying' about Resurrection? Given that the Jews today are understood to either not be descendents of Jews in Jesus time, or (my view) descendents of Jews who failed to see the truth of the Resurrection, what does discussion of the supposed propensity to deceive of contemporary Jews have to do with the Jews who wrote the NT?
Read Josephus and be amused at the never-changing Jewish character.
You live in "Greater Judea" because your oligarchs/theocrats are now Jewish. Dominions are named for their elite peoples, not the common folk (Chin-a for the conquering Chin/Mexico for the conquering Mexica/Frank-reich/Angle-land/Rus-sia, etc.).
2003-01-20 15:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 18 2003, 18:51 NeoN is not trying to draw me into seeing 'scientific methodology'. That is a misconception. Rather, NeoN and myself are engaged in a comparison to see whose "disciplined epistemological analysis" is longer and thicker. In these sorts of contests, I never lose, nor am I 'drawn' anyplace I do not wish to go.
Whither Wintermute's erection?
Hey!...[sharp whistle]can we get the Forum's fluffer in here to get WM "drawn" out, please?
[I go to all the trouble to explain this epistemology sh*t in real time, and WM remains...flaccid.]
2003-01-20 18:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 18 2003, 01:01 **I must say in response, TD, that the tone of your assessment at this point is quite other than that with which you first reacted to the presentation of my trinity of "Americans".
Gone is the (to again be blunt/rude) wounded petulance of the initial reaction, now replaced with concession and eqanimity.
Your account of this transition would be of interest.**
Nothing really deep or anything, NN. My first reply was simply a gut reaction, typed mostly in anger. To be honest, I probably would have deleted it until FW split the post and my reply became somewhat central to the new topic. I do try to be even-handed to everyone here, but hey, I'm only human and sometimes react in anger.
After a period of reflection, emotion fades. While I am still put off by your comments/beliefs, the existential side of my nature manifests itself and I realize that nothing I can say or do is going to change your mind. It's not likely I'm going to produce some kind of ontological proof of God here or anything. Although it is my contention that our human ability to 'reason' is proof enough.
This topic has diverged into various directions and I will go through and make a point here and there where I can. So I'm not abondoning anything, but I see no further reason for contention. That's pretty much it.
2003-01-20 18:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 18 2003, 14:24 > Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 19:12 ** One can deny that Scripture is historically accurate while still believing it tells the truth about the need to believe in Christ. **
If you don't believe the scripture is historically accurate, how can you accept what it says about Christ? For that matter, apart from the scriptures, who is Christ?
That's the problem the new theology has always tried, unsuccessfully, to meaningfully address.**
I'm totally with you here, Okiereddust. Without a historical Jesus and historical resurrection, then Christianity is no more worthy a religion than Hinduism, Islam or Buddhism. Two things are essential in separating Christianity from other religions and they are 1) it's real historical basis, and 2) it is direct speech - Christ speaks to us in the first person. You can't take either of those away without completely destroying Christianity.
2003-01-20 18:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 18 2003, 06:03 ** Salvation a subjective phenomena affecting only the believer? If you insist. **
Well, what I meant by that is belief in salvation is held by individuals i.e. subjectively.
2003-01-20 19:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 18 2003, 08:32 ** What I mean is that there is nothing to be derived, without dogmatic preconception, from the "Resurrection," whatever its weight in Christian theology. **
Sorry NN, but I just can't understand how you come to this conclusion. We have historical record of Christ's own words. Of course the historical record of his resurrection shows us how seriously we should heed them. We have record of the miracles and resurrection. I'm not sure what further 'proof' could have been offered.
2003-01-20 19:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Jan 18 2003, 10:23 If it is taken as symbolic of a CHOSEN belief, and not as inerrant word of god (if such exists), then I'm all for it. But DON'T try to sell me that it's 'real' or history or proven fact. It's a symbol of a chosen belief! Not science! **
But Avalanche my dear, science is so woefully lacking in attempts to prove the "Big Questions." You mention intelligent design, so riddle me this: How did man evolve into the ability to reason or reflect?
I think that 'convincing' oneself that this is true, while it may indeed offer much-needed comfort and support is also, to me, just deluding oneself in order to have an (emotionally) easier life.)
Really nothing could be further from the truth. Being a Christian involves imitiation of Christ, which as we all know from the historical record was a man beaten, spit upon and ultimately crucified. Surely you don't consider that the "easy" path here in this world.
2003-01-20 21:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 20 2003, 19:19 > Originally posted by Avalanche@Jan 18 2003, 10:23 If it is taken as symbolic of a CHOSEN belief, and not as inerrant word of god (if such exists), then I'm all for it. But DON'T try to sell me that it's 'real' or history or proven fact. It's a symbol of a chosen belief! Not science! **
But Avalanche my dear, science is so woefully lacking in attempts to prove the "Big Questions." You mention intelligent design, so riddle me this: How did man evolve into the ability to reason or reflect? **
Tex, On the question of evolution, I highly recommend Darwins Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennet (that's alot of 'D's, I know). It's the best general exposition of evolution, not just as a biological phenomenom but as a general algorithmic one, that I've read.
Avalanche, I thought 'intelligent design' was the old argument against evolution, is it the new one too?
2003-01-20 23:03 | User Profile
I would ask the atheists---how did it all begin if there was no God? Nothing out of nothing? How come the Jews spend a great deal of time smashing Christianity, see Mel Gibson's current situation.
2003-01-21 00:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by Malachi@Jan 20 2003, 17:03 I would ask the atheists---how did it all begin if there was no God? Nothing out of nothing? How come the Jews spend a great deal of time smashing Christianity, see Mel Gibson's current situation.
There was no "'beginning" - it always was.
2003-01-21 01:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 20 2003, 12:32 After a period of reflection, emotion fades. While I am still put off by your comments/beliefs, the existential side of my nature manifests itself and I realize that nothing I can say or do is going to change your mind. It's not likely I'm going to produce some kind of ontological proof of God here or anything. Although it is my contention that our human ability to 'reason' is proof enough.
I presume that you are not writing that you cannot change my mind in principle, i.e., with the application of evidence and logic. I take it that you cannot do so for lack of a persuasive rationale, in those terms, for your own views.
The implication of this is that your mind ought to change. Yet you speak of "proof enough".
"Proof" (of theory) is the demonstration of a pattern of association; "proof" (of fact) is the demonstration of data; "proof" (in logic) is the demonstration of connections between and among facts and theories.
We can accept human reason as given as a "fact," but proof of "God" as fact has not been made directly by demonstration of "data" other than by renaming the data itself "God" - which in this case would be effected by merely renaming human reason. If the latter is not your intention, the alternative is to treat "God" as theory, to be connected to the fact of human reason with logic. As you have not produced this unlikely ontological argument, you are without an argument in your favor, unless you do wish to add nothing to our knowledge by merely renaming human reason or nature or whatever.
2003-01-21 02:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 20 2003, 13:02 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 18 2003, 08:32 ** What I mean is that there is nothing to be derived, without dogmatic preconception, from the "Resurrection," whatever its weight in Christian theology. **
Sorry NN, but I just can't understand how you come to this conclusion. We have historical record of Christ's own words. Of course the historical record of his resurrection shows us how seriously we should heed them. We have record of the miracles and resurrection. I'm not sure what further 'proof' could have been offered.**
"Christ's own words" are preconceptual in this regard. The "event" itself does not speak. The "record of the miracles and resurrection" is the equivalent of a resume of magic tricks such as were practiced then and now - there was no leveling of mountains with the sweep of a hand such as only "God-Almighty" could have performed. And "miracles and resurrections" unreplicated have only negative implications for our knowledge.
2003-01-21 02:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jan 20 2003, 13:19 But Avalanche my dear, science is so woefully lacking in attempts to prove the "Big Questions." You mention intelligent design, so riddle me this: How did man evolve into the ability to reason or reflect?
Where is the demonstration that all questions are answerable, such that one deduces from the inapplicability of science that there must be an alternative?
Man evolved into the ability to reason and reflect by a succession of accidental organic modifications which enhanced survival and thus reproductive success in niches inhabited by prehumans.
2003-01-21 03:13 | User Profile
Leveller: Avalanche, I thought 'intelligent design' was the old argument against evolution, is it the new one too? It's the new (or maybe "renewed"?) way to get religion into schools (I'm in GA, where there is a VERY strong creationist/anti-darwin force...). They've gotten school boards to include disclaimers that evolution is a THEORY (since they seemingly don't understand how the word theory is used in science...) and the new way to try to force the teaching of religious creation is by making teachers (many of whom down here, actually seem to BE creationists anyway) discuss the concepts of 'intelligent design" without actually addressing WHO they think did the designing.... If they'd only be HONEST about it, and include aliens-from-UFOs as a possiblity, I'd be less... jaundiced... about that particular teaching method!!! (But I suppose then the Raelians would want in too!! :rolleyes: )
2003-01-21 06:04 | User Profile
**Aether theory was substantially discarded at this point, though as you point out, Lorentz proposed his Tran[s]formations in order to salvage Aether, and those equations were later fitted to the corpus of Relativistic theory.
...Question: are the Lorentz Transformations results of a unique event or not?
...Hence the Lorentz transformations are based on the results of unique event. They are designed to preserve the explanatory force of aether in the face of experimental results which Lorentz accepts as certain. He want[ed] to preserve the theory and "save the phenomena", and his equations do an admirable job of that.**
This is incorrect [and reads like some of it was copied from a partisan text]. Lorentz proposed his Transformations based upon multiple experiments and considerations. Only Fitzgerald can be said to have merely attempted to "salvage" the aether with his "contraction" - which contraction is but one of the three transformed phenomena, the interpretation of which third is still a matter of dispute and experimental investigation and only as much in light of acceptance of the other transformations - and, importantly, the contraction contradicts the paradigm shift away from the aether which the first MM exercise is alleged to have facilitated by itself.
Lorentz's acceptance of the contraction thesis was based on his own proprietary electronic experiments indicating a deformation of moving electrons, and his addition of the time dilation and mass accretion elements of the Transformations was based upon experiments and considerations other than the first MM exercise. Thus Lorentz was neither dogmatically "certain" nor merely in search of a "salvage" - and his interpretation of this complex of considerations, again, contradicts the orthodox formulation by Einstein upon which basis such as has been the enduring paradigm shift away from the aether has taken place.
So, whether you are in the pro-aether camp, or in the post-aether camp, most of your groundwork was done by a "unique event". Your riposte that Einstein deduced relativity while remaining innocent of MM (I am unfamiliar with this line of argument) is also irrelevant: how many times did he repeat his thought experiment? Wouldn't once be enough? More real-world work done by a unique event - in this case, the gedankenexperiment.
"MM was 'replicated' three times,...Aether theory was substantially discarded at this point,...."< WM contradicts himself thus in continuing to refer to a "unique event" in other than the trivial sense pawned off in these leading remarks. A "unique event" is not significantly distinguished as such by a mere adjustment of constituent elements. Such enduring discard as there has been has not been based on MM but on Einstein's entirely separate considerations of constant "c" and Machian positivism. In fact, the (replicated) MM exercise has endured as the (merely partial) basis of the Lorentzian rationalization of the aether theory. The only affirmative response to considerations which could be confined to the first MM was Fitzgerald's merely provisionally affirmative salvage/rationalization, which, as explained above, came nowhere near a pretext for not discarding it absent other considerations and further experimentation. The reference to Einstein was in contradiction of the allegation regarding the MM experiment as the basis of the shift away from the aether, hence its obvious relevance whatever the character of Einstein's contribution. The acceptance of Einstein's progressively-achieved formulation (not "event") involved countless inward replications, and certain outward elaborations, by himself and other scientists. No contribution by a "unique event" survives.
2003-01-21 06:52 | User Profile
** In the case of our contested resurrection, it would be taken as a definitive counterexample to the famous syllogism leader, "All men are mortal".**
At best this is merely a "counter-example" - not a counter-theory, since we are speaking of the "theoretical" implication of a "unique event". No theories are yet perfect - finding a counter-example to a theory/generalization is a theoretical implication in the trivial sense of provisionally casting suspicion on existing theory and inviting imaginative speculation as to provisional alternatives, pending replication. Absent replication, one is left with no more than suspicion and imagination, as is the point in regard to the specific "event" in question.
One can go on to argue that a resurrection does not imply immortality. One might be resurrected in any sense one might imagine and yet perish subsequently. QED
You would object that you mean the Resurrection and supposed subsequent immortality of YbY. This is not a discrete and verifiable "event" and so is excluded in principle from consideration.
2003-01-21 08:53 | User Profile
> 2) What is the theoretical implication of a unique event,**
This is the question that I am dealing with. I want everyone to hold it in their minds, because NN, with his smooth stage patter, is going to turn your attention away from it ever so gradually, until you accept the substitute question later. Basic bait and switch in other words.**
The "bait and switch" has been performed by WM's having stupidly transformed the combined questions "What is the theoretical implication of a unique event, i.e., what is the role of replication in formulating 'truth' which does not involve dogmatic preconception?" into contrary contentions - for his having failed to grasp the context of the question(s).
> What is the theoretical implication of a unique event**
And the answer: a 'mysterious void' in our worldview. To bring up the fact that this is not an affirmative implication is to play the Polichinello here. The theoretical implication of a unique event is a "mysterious void" in our knowledge. You have it straight from both sides of the magicians mouth, minus the attempted retreat into the rules that characterize science alone.
His second caveat, that this does not constitue an admission, I will accept, on the ground that both he and I now agree on the answer to his question.
Unless there are further questions, I believe that the affair of the "mysterious void" is now at an end.**
An affair never begun outside of WM's mind - as "the answer" is and was the suggestion to TD in re the "Resurrection" that a new and verified theory (like sin-and-salvation) is not the theoretical implication of a unique event (like the "Resurrection"). Poor WM fails to understand that this first question was asked as an invitation to TD to analyze and realize that there is no such "affirmative" (theological) implication as he would imagine there to be. The second question was consistent with, and elaborated on, this pertinent implication of the first question, by pointing to that fundamantal requisite which a unique event intrinsically fails to provide toward the desired and imagined new theory (to emerge from theologically pertinent events). The point of the discussion was never the correct answer to the first question, over which WM has now made a clown of himself in pointlessly finding us in agreement, it was the incorrectness of the answer thereto which is the implication of the Christian position against which I am arguing - and which argument and incorrectness should have been seen as the point, if only from the presumption of there having been a disagreement.
Now, are we limiting ourselves to the natural sciences, with all the rules and procedures employed there, or were we di[s]cussing the Resurrection and its possible implications? I thought I knew just a moment ago, until this burly man pulled a quarter from my ear! Or perhaps not 'science', but just 'reason'? By which NN implies the two are coequal. Or is it 'epistemology', where my examples of the implication of unique events would surprise no-one? I can't really say what we're talking about anymore, because NN keeps changing the subject!
Negative: science (as pertinent to the R) = reason = epistemology, for purposes of this discussion of fundamental considerations. There was no discussion of "all the rules and procedures".
2003-01-21 09:54 | User Profile
> Epistemology rests upon experience of the acquisition and transmission of "knowledge". **
You're describing phenomenology, which is a different beast. Epistemology, as I said, rests on aspects of existence which are not the object, but rather the ground, of reasoning. Hence your comment, " time-wasting, circumlocutory, nonsensical explorations of the ground of being." You're not opposed to time-wasting, circumlocutory, nonsensical explorations of "unique events", so what's the problem with investigating the Ground of Being? The idea that such an exploration is a)a waste of time and b)nonsensical are dogmatic preconceptions, which you had led me to believe you were opposed to. "Unscientific" and all that. Well, who's dogmatizing now?**
This contribution requires too much rectification to make the effort worthwhile. I will be happy to respond if you can manage to correctly characterize my views.
> The contested meanings were thus because the pre-conception from which they were derived was, as explained earlier, necessarily without the clarity which would permit the firm exercise of logic.**
Nope. I was referring to the follow up quote - **
No you weren't.
> For, instructed in humility and charity in avoidance of the sins of pride and self-seeking, the Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world.
Please refer to my opening remarks in regard to "Morons" re Christians. **
My point is that the Church itself is a 'master cult'. I was simply trying to unpack that insight by giving some bloody testimony from the first four centuries. Cyril didn't direct the mobs to skin Hypatia alive because he was a pussy, Cyril did it because he was evil in that particular way that your namesake both denies and celebrates. Hence the church is itself a 'master peoples' which is oriented towards and has achieved objective success in this world. Check the biographies of the Renaissance popes if you don't believe me. Additional evidence, if required, may be sought in the Crusades.**
My "reference," above, was in regard to your mistaken imputation to me of a characterization of Christians as "cowards" - where I had made precisely the opposite point in my introduction to the thread. You now engage in the pretense that I would disagree with the remarks above, which I do not and presumptively would not, given my remarks about oligarchy and theocracy - and in the pretense that my "reference" was preceded by the material quoted above it rather than by your mistaken characterization - and in the pretense, for the sake of covering your mistake, that your revised "point" is nevertheless that which was first raised and to which I correctly objected.
**I am happy to say that I have never seen a "fluffer". It is obvious to me that we move in widely differing social circles.
As to your rather vulgar language, I can only say this. I have asserted that my 'disciplined epistemological analysis' is longer and thicker than yours, and the proof of that is contained in both the length and breadth of this post. Nothing could be more apparent.
Your undue impatience for my reply indicates to me that the inadequacy of your own 'disciplined epistemological analysis' is keenly felt by you, and that on such grounds you are eager for correction.
Furthermore, your absurd pride in your relative 'quickness to completion' is not, and never will be, contested by me. I have no reason to argue with you on this claim, nor have I asserted that the chief virtue of my analysis is that is is quickly over. However, since I do not wish that title and you seem to, I happily grant it.
Henceforth, you shall be known as "One Minute Nietzsche" in reference to your matchless speed in this arena.**
Qualitatively, my attempt at humor was much superior to yours - but I am sure, from your allegations, that you might be pleasantly relieved of some of yours for having the magnificent means right in hand - were you but to grasp the opportunity.
NeoNietzsche
2003-01-21 17:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Jan 21 2003, 03:13 > Leveller: Avalanche, I thought 'intelligent design' was the old argument against evolution, is it the new one too? It's the new (or maybe "renewed"?) way to get religion into schools (I'm in GA, where there is a VERY strong creationist/anti-darwin force...). They've gotten school boards to include disclaimers that evolution is a THEORY (since they seemingly don't understand how the word theory is used in science...) and the new way to try to force the teaching of religious creation is by making teachers (many of whom down here, actually seem to BE creationists anyway) discuss the concepts of 'intelligent design" without actually addressing WHO they think did the designing.... If they'd only be HONEST about it, and include aliens-from-UFOs as a possiblity, I'd be less... jaundiced... about that particular teaching method!!! (But I suppose then the Raelians would want in too!! :rolleyes: )
Intelligent design was a good argument for the existence of a creator before evolutionary theories were developed. Since, everything known by man to have been created (a castle, a beavers dam), was created by a more highly developed being, it was reasonable to assume that this was true in all cases. Even then as you say, it was only an argument for a master creator at the top of the 'great chain of being', not for a particular one with a particular cosmogony.
The 'intelligent design' people have got one thing in their favour, they only have to find a single thing that could not have evolved incrementally to win the argument. I'm not holding my breath though.
2003-01-21 17:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 21 2003, 00:40 > Originally posted by Malachi@Jan 20 2003, 17:03 I would ask the atheists---how did it all begin if there was no God? Nothing out of nothing? How come the Jews spend a great deal of time smashing Christianity, see Mel Gibson's current situation.**
There was no "'beginning" - it always was.**
These philosophical and theological discussions are stimulating and I want to make sure that we all realize that we are comrades no matter what side of the arguement we come down on.
As to the statment that it "always was", now that takes a lot of faith. ;)
2003-01-22 04:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 21 2003, 17:25 Intelligent design was a good argument for the existence of a creator before evolutionary theories were developed. Since, everything known by man to have been created (a castle, a beavers dam), was created by a more highly developed being, it was reasonable to assume that this was true in all cases. Even then as you say, it was only an argument for a master creator at the top of the 'great chain of being', not for a particular one with a particular cosmogony.
Then we found that 747 that just happened into being right?
The 'intelligent design' people have got one thing in their favour, they only have to find a single thing that could not have evolved incrementally to win the argument. I'm not holding my breath though.
Leve(i?) ;), I haven't seen evidence of single thing that "could" have evolved from something fundamentally simpler.
That's why the call evolution a theory. At its root it is stil just a speculation. The processes that make up evolutionary change by definition can't be observed.
Really, evolution is more properly viewed as scientific philosophy rather than science, since it is spevulative rather than positive. The argument is its a philosophy that requires more "faith" than almost any supernatural system of belief.
I really am surprised smart people like you and NeoNietszche don't even seem to have a rough acquaintance with or at least acknowledge the views of academics ranging from physicists and astronomers to cosmological philosophers, including men like Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, Robert Jastrow, and Richard Swineburne. I'll agree that faith is never compulsorary, but the grounds of unbelief you seem to presume are pretty much outdated at the leading edge.
2003-01-22 04:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by Malachi@Jan 21 2003, 17:45 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 21 2003, 00:40 ** There was no "'beginning" - it always was.
As to the statment that it "always was", now that takes a lot of faith. ;)**
NeoNietszche apparently has never heard of the big bang.
There are theories about what happened before then, but they are nothing but speculation. No different than religious speculations really.
It also doesn't really make sense to say that things always were and always will be, because the universe is expanding forever, never to return.
2003-01-22 13:56 | User Profile
> ** NeoN is not trying to draw me into seeing 'scientific methodology'. That is a misconception. Rather, NeoN and myself are engaged in a comparison to see whose "disciplined epistemological analysis" is longer and thicker. In these sorts of contests, I never lose, nor am I 'drawn' anyplace I do not wish to go.
Whither Wintermute's erection?
Hey!...[sharp whistle]can we get the Forum's fluffer in here to get WM "drawn" out, please?
[I go to all the trouble to explain this epistemology sht in real time, and WM remains...flaccid.]*
> As to your rather vulgar language, I can only say this. I have asserted that my 'disciplined epistemological analysis' is longer and thicker than yours, and the proof of that is contained in both the length and breadth of this post. Nothing could be more apparent.**
Qualitatively, my attempt at humor was much superior to yours - but I am sure, from your allegations, that you might be pleasantly relieved of some of yours for having the magnificent means right in hand - were you but to grasp the opportunity.**
Hey!...[sharp whistle]can we please get the EMT's in here, chop-chop - Wintermute took my advice and now has a two-handed death-grip on himself!
2003-01-22 14:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Malachi@Jan 21 2003, 11:45 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 21 2003, 00:40 > Originally posted by Malachi@Jan 20 2003, 17:03 I would ask the atheists---how did it all begin if there was no God? Nothing out of nothing? How come the Jews spend a great deal of time smashing Christianity, see Mel Gibson's current situation.
There was no "'beginning" - it always was.**
These philosophical and theological discussions are stimulating and I want to make sure that we all realize that we are comrades no matter what side of the arguement we come down on.
As to the stat[e]ment that it "always was", now that takes a lot of faith. ;)**
The decision, at this point, is between alternate supposed conceptualizations of the course of the universe's existence.
The notion of Something-from-Nothing (as in certain presentations of the BB) is meaningless and/or contrary to our general experience of physical precedence for all events.
Hence we are left with the perpetuity, in both directions of time, of the existence of a hypothetical "something" - even if it is not the familiar something of the known constituents of the universe.
2003-01-22 15:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 22 2003, 14:32 ** The decision, at this point, is between alternate supposed conceptualizations of the course of the universe's existence.
The notion of Something-from-Nothing (as in certain presentations of the BB) is meaningless and/or contrary to our general experience of physical precedence for all events.
Hence we are left with the perpetuity, in both directions of time, of the existence of a hypothetical "something" - even if it is not the familiar something of the known constituents of the universe.**
To the extent that we know what time is at all, it only exists in the context of space. Before the big bang... there was no before, because there was no time, counterintuitive as this is to our subjective experience.
2003-01-22 17:12 | User Profile
Okie,
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 22 2003, 04:51 > Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 21 2003, 17:25 Intelligent design was a good argument for the existence of a creator before evolutionary theories were developed. Since, everything known by man to have been created (a castle, a beavers dam), was created by a more highly developed being, it was reasonable to assume that this was true in all cases. Even then as you say, it was only an argument for a master creator at the top of the 'great chain of being', not for a particular one with a particular cosmogony.**
Then we found that 747 that just happened into being right?**
Then evolution provided an alternative mechanism by which complex systems could come into existence.
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 22 2003, 04:51 ** Leve(i?) ;), **
That's been done before, already! :D
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 22 2003, 04:51 ** I haven't seen evidence of single thing that "could" have evolved from something fundamentally simpler.
That's why the call evolution a theory. At its root it is stil just a speculation. The processes that make up evolutionary change by definition can't be observed.
Really, evolution is more properly viewed as scientific philosophy rather than science, since it is spevulative rather than positive. The argument is its a philosophy that requires more "faith" than almost any supernatural system of belief.**
Accounting for historical events inevitably can't be held to the standards (repeatable experiments and so on) of other fields of inquiry. This doesn't make the whole thing arbitrary. The question should be, what is the explanation that best accounts for what we can observe today, with due respect to Occams razor.
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 22 2003, 04:51 ** I really am surprised smart people like you and NeoNietszche don't even seem to have a rough acquaintance with or at least acknowledge the views of academics ranging from physicists and astronomers to cosmological philosophers, including men like Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, Robert Jastrow, and Richard Swineburne.**
I do acknowledge the views of evolution skeptics. There are some good critics of the inability of evolutionists to recreate the building blocks of life in a best-guess 'primordial soup'. I'm aware of Fred '747' Hoyles ideas to some extent - I plead ignorance about the other guys you mention, I'll look them up on the web (it's been a few years since I looked at this stuff).
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 22 2003, 04:51 ** I'll agree that faith is never compulsorary, but the grounds of unbelief you seem to presume are pretty much outdated at the leading edge.**
If by unbelief you mean unbelief in a supreme being, I'm open minded on that score, I simply assert that evolution has yet to be topped as the best explanation of the creation of life, and especially of its advancement after that. Also, limitations in evolution leave us in ignorance, which is fair enough, but that's a different thing from demonstrating the truth of alternative explanations, which must be done on its own merits.
2003-01-22 17:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 22 2003, 14:32 > (There was no "'beginning" - it always was.)
The notion of Something-from-Nothing (as in certain presentations of the BB) is meaningless and/or contrary to our general experience of physical precedence for all events.**
**
You are saying - what? I'm not sure. You are saying you know, positively, that there has never been a beginning? Or are you saying a beginning is just "meaningless" because by we can't physically experience it?
If you say something is not true, because, by definition, any possible proof to the contrary would be "meaningless" you are just falling into the old logical trap of assuming what you are trying to prove.
Are you aware of Kant's work on this and the problem of the limits of human knowledge in Critique of Pure Reason??
Hence we are left with the perpetuity, in both directions of time, of the existence of a hypothetical "something" - even if it is not the familiar something of the known constituents of the universe.
Can you define "something"? I don't think you can. If you can't, you are just using it as a connotation word, unless you can come up with an objective definition of "something" that is different than the objective definition for "nothing".
I am not familiar very familiar in a direct sense with Nietszche, but I would think to understand his thought you would really have to have a better handle on these objectivity/subjectivity, modern/postmodern (Nietszche is often described as being the first postmodernist, even though Adorno,Horkheimer basically systemized it) types of issues. Discussions of cosmology and epistimology invariably get into the heart of these types of issues.
2003-01-22 18:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 22 2003, 17:12 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 22 2003, 04:51 ** I'll agree that faith is never compulsorary, but the grounds of unbelief you seem to presume are pretty much outdated at the leading edge.
If by unbelief you mean unbelief in a supreme being, I'm open minded on that score, I simply assert that evolution has yet to be topped as the best explanation of the creation of life, and especially of its advancement after that. Also, limitations in evolution leave us in ignorance, which is fair enough, but that's a different thing from demonstrating the truth of alternative explanations, which must be done on its own merits.**
Well, as someone who has read about and personally looked at the biochemistry involved, it hardly seems a good explanation to me. It may be the "best" explanation currently available if you have certain presuppositions, in the same way that in the middle ages the explanation of thunder, that "it was the voice of an angry God", was the "best" available explanation to them. But it's hardly conclusive that's for sure.
2003-01-23 00:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 22 2003, 09:45 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jan 22 2003, 14:32 ** The decision, at this point, is between alternate supposed conceptualizations of the course of the universe's existence.
The notion of Something-from-Nothing (as in certain presentations of the BB) is meaningless and/or contrary to our general experience of physical precedence for all events.
Hence we are left with the perpetuity, in both directions of time, of the existence of a hypothetical "something" - even if it is not the familiar something of the known constituents of the universe.**
To the extent that we know what time is at all, it only exists in the context of space. Before the big bang... there was no before, because there was no time, counterintuitive as this is to our subjective experience.**
This is the fashionable, orthodox Einsteinian confusion of space and time - with which I disagree. It is the case that one could not quantify time as we know it pre- a BB, but one could speak, as you just did, of "before" the BB in a qualitative sense and legitimately declare its infinitude, whatever its rate.
2003-01-23 01:43 | User Profile
> (There was no "'beginning" - it always was.)
The notion of Something-from-Nothing (as in certain presentations of the BB) is meaningless and/or contrary to our general experience of physical precedence for all events.**
You are saying - what? I'm not sure. You are saying you know, positively, that there has never been a beginning? Or are you saying a beginning is just "meaningless" because by we can't physically experience it?**
The latter.
If you say something is [not[?]] true, because, by definition, any possible proof to the contrary would be "meaningless" you are just falling into the old logical trap of assuming what you are trying to prove.
Our experience of physical precedence for all events creates a presumption of its universality, and, since the alternative of a profound nothingness cannot be established in principle (the "void" having continually receded), our presumption holds, without having to proscribe the alternative "by definition". Your observation is true but irrelevant.
Are you aware of Kant's work on this and the problem of the limits of human knowledge in Critique of Pure Reason??
Yes.
> Hence we are left with the perpetuity, in both directions of time, of the existence of a hypothetical "something" - even if it is not the familiar something of the known constituents of the universe.**
Can you define "something"? I don't think you can. If you can't, you are just using it as a connotation word, unless you can come up with an objective definition of "something" that is different than the objective definition for "nothing".**
Definition of "something": an unspecified thing. "Thing": object. "Object": thing. "Nothing": no thing. "No thing": no object. "No object": no thing.
It thus becomes a question not of definition but of presumption based upon established patterns, as above.
2003-01-23 02:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 22 2003, 12:02 > Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 22 2003, 17:12 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 22 2003, 04:51 ** I'll agree that faith is never compulsorary, but the grounds of unbelief you seem to presume are pretty much outdated at the leading edge.**
If by unbelief you mean unbelief in a supreme being, I'm open minded on that score, I simply assert that evolution has yet to be topped as the best explanation of the creation of life, and especially of its advancement after that. Also, limitations in evolution leave us in ignorance, which is fair enough, but that's a different thing from demonstrating the truth of alternative explanations, which must be done on its own merits.**
Well, as someone who has read about and personally looked at the biochemistry involved, it hardly seems a good explanation to me. It may be the "best" explanation currently available if you have certain presuppositions, in the same way that in the middle ages the explanation of thunder, that "it was the voice of an angry God", was the "best" available explanation to them. But it's hardly conclusive that's for sure.**
In the Middle Ages there was no "explanation" of thunder, in the sense of an analysis in terms of familiar constituent elements. "The voice of (an angry) God" is not an explanation.
In the modern day there are explanations of aspects of the origins of organic material. Their combination by a deity is, again, not an explanation.
Thus, the modern state of explanation - though not conclusive - is "best" in a considerably superior sense, contrary to the allegation made above.
2003-01-25 14:31 | User Profile
...For, instructed in humility and charity in avoidance of the sins of pride and self-seeking, the Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world. Thus the enduring effectiveness, in this latter day of mastery of theocratic technique, of manipulative appeals to the moral authority and priority of the world's victims, whose dictates are the conscientious Christian's commands to sacrifice himself in war and peace. To return to the points with which the thread began, I bluntly ("rude[ly]") refer to this characteristic behaviour as "moronic."
2003-01-25 17:53 | User Profile
'[T]he Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world.' The problem with this account is that those interested only in this-world success have little reason to concern themselves with the extra-personal sphere. You are going to die eventually--what is your reason for moving beyond hedonism? Indeed, what is even your reason for hedonism? Nietzsche does not even attempt to answer these questions. He simply affirms an aesthetic vision of the future in which a new European race--which includes the Jews on his vision, by the way--dominates the globe.
The Christian is of course concerned both with objective success in this world and with salvation in the next. The Christian is comanded to subdue the earth and hold it in stewardship, to love God, and to love his neighbor. These commands lead to a dual concern that allows and requires the Christian to take long-term steps to master the physical world. The Christian can give a rational account of why he or she is taking such long-term steps. It remains unclear how the non-Christian is to give such accounts; and it remains particularly un-clear how the atheist is to give such accounts.
2003-01-25 18:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 25 2003, 11:53 ** '[T]he Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world.' The problem with this account is that those interested only in this-world success have little reason to concern themselves with the extra-personal sphere. You are going to die eventually--what is your reason for moving beyond hedonism? Indeed, what is even your reason for hedonism? Nietzsche does not even attempt to answer these questions. He simply affirms an aesthetic vision of the future in which a new European race--which includes the Jews on his vision, by the way--dominates the globe.
The Christian is of course concerned both with objective success in this world and with salvation in the next. The Christian is comanded to subdue the earth and hold it in stewardship, to love God, and to love his neighbor. These commands lead to a dual concern that allows and requires the Christian to take long-term steps to master the physical world. The Christian can give a rational account of why he or she is taking such long-term steps. It remains unclear how the non-Christian is to give such accounts; and it remains particularly un-clear how the atheist is to give such accounts. **
The Christian once commanded by Jesus the Christ himself to 'take no thought for the morrow' now has the latter-day Gospel, in darkeddy's scriptural offering, commanding him to concern himself with, among other things, objective success in this world. This "subdue the earth and hold it" and "master the physical world" is not authentic Gospel, but is a typical filching from OT Judaism to which the Christian hypocrite constantly resorts in heresy unacknowledged in the service of comfortable accommodation. One smiles at the warm, bourgeois familiarity of that with which we have long grown up and thus fail to recognize for the contradiction and rationalization that it is.
On the other hand, the non-Christian follows the Jews in pursuit of utopia and consequent anarchy - or follows his war-leader toward a renewal and an ordering of society.
2003-01-25 19:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 25 2003, 11:53 '[T]he Christian in search of subjective "salvation" is the natural subject of master peoples oriented toward objective success in this world.' The problem with this account is that those interested only in this-world success have little reason to concern themselves with the extra-personal sphere.
This-world success at the highest levels of power has everything to do with "the extra-personal sphere". Shared theologies and ideologies are vitally necessary for the unity and cooperation of oligarchs at this level of influence. Given the nature of apostolic Christianity, such elite belief systems are necessarily non-Christian or merely nominally Christian.
2003-01-25 20:41 | User Profile
Why bother with extering influence 'at the highest levels' through shared co-opeative ideologies, if one is an atheist? It's rather dangerous to do so, after all. What reasons can be offered for such attempts?
You assert that elistic belief systems cannot be Christian, but I see no reason to accept this claim.
2003-01-25 21:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 25 2003, 14:41 **Why bother with exer[t]ing influence 'at the highest levels' through shared co-ope[r]ative ideologies, if one is an atheist?ÃÂ It's rather dangerous to do so, after all.ÃÂ What reasons can be offered for such attempts?
You assert that el[it]istic belief systems cannot be Christian, but I see no reason to accept this claim.**
1) The exertion of influence means having power - the power to exercise responsibility publicly and to acquire and enjoy resources privately. Some even enjoy the danger of which you speak.
2) Elites do not "turn the other cheek" and survive. They do not endorse such fatuities as the Beatitudes, other than hypocritically and for the sake of the pacification of the lower orders.
2003-01-25 21:37 | User Profile
It seems to me that if one seeks enjoyment, there are better means available than mouthing ideologies that maintain the power of elites. Moreover, I have a hard time believing the quest for enjoyment through this route is going to provide more motivation than the belief that one is serving God. As far as responsibilities goes--again, I would ask why the atheist cares about responsibilities?
Elites often turn the other cheek and survive. It is the nature of good politics to picks one's battles, and occasionaly let the bigger dog have his way.
Here are the Beatitudes:
'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. '
I cannot understand how you find these 'fatuous' or un-suitable for power elites. Elites can be meek, they can be pure of heart, they can suffer, can make peace, mour, etc. Do you think that Jesus means one must always be meek, must always morn, must always make peace? No--this goes well beyond what Jesus said.
2003-01-25 22:20 | User Profile
It seems to me that if one seeks enjoyment, there are better means available than mouthing ideologies that maintain the power of elites. Moreover, I have a hard time believing the quest for enjoyment through this route is going to provide more motivation than the belief that one is serving God. As far as responsibilities goes--again, I would ask why the atheist cares about responsibilities?
If elites wish to stay in power, they must mouth their ideologies. It is evident from a study of history that elites are at pains to remain in power, as they enjoy being in power. Whether this is more "motivating" than belief in "service to God" is irrelevant, as elites have other objectives toward which to be motivated in maintaining their status as such. This care about responsibilities seems to be native to some of us atheists - I take yours to be the product of external impositions.
Elites often turn the other cheek and survive. It is the nature of good politics to picks one's battles, and occasional[l]y let the bigger dog have his way.
"Letting the bigger dog have his way" is not turning the other cheek, which is, rather, the degrading indication of readiness to receive another insult. Polities do not engage in this perverse Christian gesture for obvious reasons. Elites are always a minority element vitally dependent upon the projection of domestic authority. They do not, again for obvious reasons and as a matter of history, requite affronts to that authority with invitations to an unrequited repetition.
I cannot understand how you find these 'fatuous' or un-suitable for power elites. Elites can be meek, they can be pure of heart, they can suffer, can make peace, mour, etc. Do you think that Jesus means one must always be meek, must always morn, must always make peace? No--this goes well beyond what Jesus said.
The world is ruled by lies and violence, as evidenced in history and as the implication of the logic of political economy. In ruling, elites must follow and internalize this rule, which is contrary to the spirit of the Beatitudes. If you will assimilate these fundamental considerations, your "understanding" will be greatly enhanced.
2003-01-25 22:47 | User Profile
Here are the Beatitudes: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth. ... Is all this stuff supposed to happen AFTER death? Cause it sure as hell don't happen HERE! ;) So all this advice is for how you live HERE in order to get your rewards in heaven?
**I cannot understand how you find these 'fatuous' or un-suitable for power elites. Elites can be meek, they can be pure of heart, they can suffer, can make peace, mourn, etc **
Power elites can't be both bound by this stuff AND elite! No elite is meek -- that's a subordinate's position:
Meek, adj. humbly patient or submissive, overly patient or submissive; spiritless; tame.
I more believe the saying: the meek will inherit the earth AFTER the strong are done with it...
It seems like y'all Christians are tryin' to justify a subordinate position in the world, by renaming it as a version of elite. Have any of you read S.M. Stirling's Drakka books? They provide a really good (if rather brutal) description of what is needed to BE an elite! NeoNietzsche made me read those books before I came to meet him, because it is his view of the world, it is a really good ââ¬Åintroductionââ¬Â to the realities of power. (It's "alternate history" -- what would have happened if the Revolutionary War Loyalists and 'defeated southerners' and Hessians and so on moved en masse to the south of Africa, and, over the decades, remained strong, warrior elites? Retained slavery of lesser peoples (get conquered, get chained, eh?); and what happens in the world thereafter. Really great books, for a look at the uses and management of power.
The four books, published by Baen (distributed by Simon & Schuster) are: * Marching Through Georgia (c1988) * Under the Yoke (c1989) * The Stone Dogs (c1990) * Drakon (c1996)
2003-01-25 23:00 | User Profile
Avalanche claims that one cannot both at times be humbly submissive, and also be an elite.
I am afraid this is ignoring the adage that there is always a bigger fish.
PS For one, there is always the Lord above.
2003-01-26 00:10 | User Profile
**Darkeddy: Avalanche claims that one cannot both at times be humbly submissive, and also be an elite.
I am afraid this is ignoring the adage that there is always a bigger fish.**
Not at all -- are you suggesting there is only ONE elite? Like, um,"king of the hill"?
An "elite" would/could be an entire warrior CLASS (say, Aztec warriors; the Roman Senate, the Inca, the Japanese daimyo (nobility under the shogunates), Hindu Brahmins, Russian Boyars). There can be several "elites" but if they are competing for the same resources, there's gonna be a war! But NONE of them was humbly submissive, else they lose their... place... as elites. (Even if defeated and captured, they didn't cease being elites! Nor did they humbly and meekly submit!)
And being... subordinate to god... does not make any of these less elite! That's a whole different thing. And they were not meekly subordinate to their god(s), but viewed their nobility, ruthlessness, and 'elite' status as a thing of pride, before men and god(s) alike.
2003-01-26 00:49 | User Profile
This entire discussion impelled me to reread the Beatitudes. Man, who was Joshua Ben Yahweh's script writer, Karl Marx? And Christians call National Socialists Marxists!
I have no objection to a truly reformed Christianity - as distinct from the dubious remnants of Luther's Inglorious Deformation or their cousin the handmaiden of the Grand Rebbe of Rome. Actually, this is one on the 25 points of the NSDAP. One of the first things that will have to be done, though, is the expunging of this bit of decadent cosseting of the botched, useless and parasitic - theirs should be the kingdom of the sterilization operating theater. The very first thing, of course, would be the destruction of that vile collection of Judaic Tales of genocidal mania, terror, bloodlust and ruthless world conquest, the so-called old testament. Then we can apply a permanent black marker and a pair of scissors to the more recent testament, flesh it out with generous portions of traditional German volk religion (I here mean the authentic article, not NEO-paganism nor that synagogue of Jew Feminists and their Irish Shabby goyesses, Wicca, both far more redolent of the stench of Judaism than the most noisome Christian cult extant) and then all honor the cross - arguably the oldest of Aryan religious symbols. I heartily recommend the Solar Wheel of Life, a personal favorite of mine.
All you confirmed atheists can optionally strike a thoughtfully dour but yet indulgent pose while meditating and reflecting gravely on the silliness transpiring all around you.
2003-01-26 02:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Jan 25 2003, 18:10 ** > **Darkeddy:ÃÂ Avalanche claims that one cannot both at times be humbly submissive, and also be an elite.
I am afraid this is ignoring the adage that there is always a bigger fish.**
Not at all -- are you suggesting there is only ONE elite? Like, um,"king of the hill"?
An "elite" would/could be an entire warrior CLASS (say, Aztec warriors; the Roman Senate, the Inca, the Japanese daimyo (nobility under the shogunates), Hindu Brahmins, Russian Boyars). There can be several "elites" but if they are competing for the same resources, there's gonna be a war! But NONE of them was humbly submissive, else they lose their... place... as elites. (Even if defeated and captured, they didn't cease being elites! Nor did they humbly and meekly submit!)
And being... subordinate to god... does not make any of these less elite! That's a whole different thing. And they were not meekly subordinate to their god(s), but viewed their nobility, ruthlessness, and 'elite' status as a thing of pride, before men and god(s) alike. **
Avalanche, if being humbly submissive to God is kosher for elites on your view--what was your criticism of the Beautitudes again? Looks like it kind of fell apart.
In any case, you have failed to show that an elitist culture where one shows proper humility towards one superiors will be a failing elitist culture. A place for humble sumbission worked, to varying degrees, for 4th C. BC Athens, Mandarin China, and Christian Europe.
2004-01-12 22:30 | User Profile
One of OD's finest.
(I'm gonna smoke you out, wintermute. Sooner or later.)
:thumbsup: