Judeo-Christian wackiness

[ShaolinWolf]

Well, that's not very good. You have to read it. Otherwise, you sound like your talking nonsense. I understand. Your tired. Your not thinking clearly. But that was so totally irrelevant.

:asian:

 

[loki09789]

Heh. Sounds like somebody's been reading Joseph Campbell.

Need it also be mentioned that Lucifer literally means 'bringer of light'??

Shhhhhh....Prometheus is sleeping....

Also keep in mind, in terms of plural 'gods' in relation to christianity that the "thou shalt not worship...." (heretic: the 'biblical language' thing I think was an attempt to make it sound 'legit' by some) of the 10 commandments is a translation that in some forms is "no other gods"/"there is only one god, and his name is Allah..." is a declaration of belief - not to be taken as 'fact' as much as 'faith' in the form of an oath.

Heretic's point about personal religious faith taking more that just 'faith' is so true. For those of us who choose to believe, it SHOULD be based on a foundation of ALL of the gifts/talents/experiences.... that we actively apply to personal growth and exploration.

If you choose to see the current biblical canon as inspirational and divine, then the possible Jesus/Christ message of working from a focus of personal knowledge and spiritual health as a core foundation for a healthy community is evident. The open criticism of the powers of the day was because the Jewish nation/people who were part of Jesus' community were, as Heretic pointed out, similar to people in the current day (and possibly through out all human time) because they only were interested in looking so far and so deep and they left the rest to the religious authority.

We each have to find our own PERSONAL way by applying intelligence, creativity, education, emotion, action, experience... in the right measure whether it is as a member of an organized church/religion or as an independent (interesting how so many religious praxis' translate to political terminology... and we wonder why these are the two taboo topics for harmony - because where the rubber meets the road they are the same thing.).

I am a firm believer that if the focus was on 'right mind/right action' (thanks for the Buddha reference - wasn't willing to bring it up right away) which for christians is usually phrased "faith in works" we could see a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hari Krishna, Hindi, Athiest (but still a moral, civic minded person - holy cow could that be an American/patriotic translation to avoid Church/State friction).......and so on all working in the same soup kitchen because the INTENT is to practice charity as a way of supporting the community not the intention of demonstrating superiority of a particular faith WITHIN a community.

 

[qizmoduis]

Hey folks. Just to interject: I keep seeing these words "choose to believe" in many posts. I can't see how choosing a belief is even possible. A person cannot "choose to believe" he can fly. Believing is not an act of volition. I'm not an atheist because I chose to be one. I'm an atheist because I don't believe - I don't have the state of mind that includes the possibility of the existence of deities.

Seriously. How does somebody "choose to believe"?

 

[ShaolinWolf]

No, you choose not to believe. Your Sacreligious. You don't want to believe. When it's decision time, you can change the worlds all around, but in the end it's the same thing whether you say it or not.

:asian:

 

[loki09789]

Hey folks. Just to interject: I keep seeing these words "choose to believe" in many posts. I can't see how choosing a belief is even possible. A person cannot "choose to believe" he can fly. Believing is not an act of volition. I'm not an atheist because I chose to be one. I'm an atheist because I don't believe - I don't have the state of mind that includes the possibility of the existence of deities.

Seriously. How does somebody "choose to believe"?

You choose to believe only if you consciously seek to educate yourself on options. If your chosen state of 'not belief' is because of conscious will and effort, you have chosen by your actions. Like I said "Faith in works" still fits because your chosen 'works' demonstrates your faith that there is no higher power. Read my first chosen signature quote and is explains my stance on this stuff.

Now, if it is a state of 'disbelief' because of a lack of exposure, education or understanding and it is more 'disinterest', 'disbelief'.... it is a negative structure/reactionary life because it is not an act of will but convenience.

IF this state of disbelief, from my POV, is as you say simply a 'state of mind' that does not include the existence of dieties then it is from a few possibilities but basically these two come to mind:

1. Genetic memory and biological explanation (or simply put, according to you we are just not made that way and the rest of us are fooling ourselves)

2. You are reasonably educated (by that I mean beyond religious indoctrination and actual theologically/philosophically trained to a degree) and have weighed all the options and have therefore CHOSEN this state of mind.

Even Carl Sagan, with all his Scientific sophistication, reached a point where he acknowledged that any assertion could only be proven to a point. The rest of the journey to conviction had to be a leap of faith - no matter how large or small you allow it to be through knowledge and application.

 

[heretic888]

In response to Tulisan/Paul's uber-post, I have a few issues to address:

1) There is a God? This was one of the "propositions" (i.e., assumptions) I had the most problems with, namely because it was presented in such a "matter-of-fact", self-evidential fashion.

There is a God, huh?? Which God?? The God of the Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims?? Is this God the same as Tao, Buddha Nature, Shunyata, and Atman --- or is it the exclusive province of us "enlightened" Westerners?? Is this the "One God" mentioned by Plato, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Plotinus, and scores of other non-Christian Western philosophers?? Is this the "all-god" (pantheus) cited in the myriad number of Mystery Schools in the ancient Mediterranean world?? Is this the "Great Spirit" referenced in various Native American traditions??

Silly boy, you didn't honestly think Jews, Christians, and Muslims were the only monotheists on the planet, did'ya??

What is the nature of this God?? Is the God male, female, neuter-gendered, or none of the above?? Does this God exist inside the manifest universe, outside it, or both?? Is this God personal or non-personal?? Is this a God of Reason, as claimed by the Deists, or is this God fundamentally non-rational in orientation?? Does this God have human-like emotions?? If so, which ones?? Does this God interfere in the affairs of humanity?? Is this God immaterial, material, both, or neither?? What is this God's relationship with humanity??

"There is a God", huh?? That's about as vague as saying "there is philosophy" or "there is a truth".

2) Elitism is the belief that one person is better then another. Errrrr.... that is a definition of elitism. By no means is it the only one. Nor was it the one I've been refering to throughout this thread.

The elitism I've been referring to is the basic nature of ethnocentrism/sociocentrism that beliefs like Mythical Prefigurement are based on: "We're right, you're wrong, and we don't need any stinkin' logic or evidence to prove it, nyah, nyah, nyah!!" That is also elitism.

3) The “truth” to someone’s belief doesn’t make him or her better or worse then another. Errrr..... ok, I don't recall ever saying it did.

I will say, however, that this particular point is something that is traditionally claimed by most sects of Christianity --- that if you believe "correctly", you will go to "Heaven" and are "saved"; whereas, if you believe "incorrectly", you will go to "Hell" and are "damned". You may not personally believe it, Paul, but your religion does --- unless the Catholic church has renounced the notions of Heaven, Hell, and Christ being the "only way" in the last couple'a years.

4) As a Catholic, I believe in the Catholic interpretation of God’s “story.” Ummm..... ok, mind telling me which "Catholic interpretation", exactly??

The Church has changed its take on the "ultimate truth" so many times that it can make your head spin --- which wouldn't be a problem if traditional Christian concepts like "only believing in this will get you into Heaven" weren't still around. Despite all these changes, the "Catholic interpretation" is still deeply schizoid --- a "God of Love" sends people to Hell?? And, why is it the "pre-Abraham" stuff is "probably mythical" but the "post-Abraham" isn't --- despite the fact that there is about equal evidence for both??

5) No matter what my beliefs are, I am not an elitist. I never claimed you were an elitist, I said your beliefs (specifically, Mythical Prefigurement) are elitist --- there is a difference. A very rational person, for example, can hold to extremely irrational beliefs and opinions. Happens all the time. The key is to differentiate between the form (the content of the person's beliefs) and the substance (why the person believes what they believe) of the position.

Come to think of it, I haven't really been talking that much about you at all --- I was specifically criticizing Mythical Prefigurement, and associated beliefs. Not any one individual.

6) The joy of relativism. This is what we could call epistemological relativism or egalitarianism (not to be confused with pluralism): "All truths are equally valid --- except for the one that claims this is so. It just happens to be the one I subscribe to."

Yup, we've kicked this dead-ender of a dead horse around enough without having to get into this kind of inane hypocrisy again...

7) Prove me wrong!! Sure thing: every single one of your "propositions" are unproven assumptions. A premise isn't logical just because you propose it --- it is logical because you support it with logic or evidence. Personally, I'd have a bad taste in my mouth if most, if not all, of my "religious" beliefs were based on unproven assumptions. But, that's just me...

I could make a similar list, with "propositions" like "I am really a little horn beatle trapped in a human body", "The earth is flat", "We live inside a black hole", and similar nonsense --- and, I could go about forumalting "logical proofs" based on such premises, just as you did.

But, here's the rub: a logical proof, when based on illogical premises, is not logical.

8) Arguing over propositions will make us blue in the face. Sorry, Paul, this was just one more unproven assumption on your part --- you should probably add it to your list or propositions and make a "logical" proof for it, too.

Arguing and criticizing people's assumptions is not circular in nature, not if either party doesn't resort to mud-slinging tactics. I can give an example of this from any number of Ninpo boards on the 'net:

Dude 1: "I'm sorry, but Dux/Tengu/Koger ryu doesn't seem to have any evidence for its claims."
Dude 2: "Yeah, well, Hakamatsu doesn't either!! So, there!!"
Dude 1: "Ummm... we werent' talking about Hakamatsu. We were talking about Dux/Tengu/Koger."

Its a rather simple, and desperate, tactic: if someone criticizes your assumptions, then attack theirs. That's right, don't try and defend yours --- attack theirs. Now, tactics like that are circular. But simple debating assumptions in and of itself is not (something I can attest to from personal experience).

9) I have a life, y'know! So do I. This isn't particularly time-consuming --- its like an hour or two every other day. Its something I do in my spare time.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

In response to Someguy's posts...

God would be beyond that as he created it all.

Not necessarily. I refer you to the ancient Christian notion of kenosis ("self-emptying") or the Hindu notion of advaita ("non-dualism"). There is also, of course, pantheism and monism.

Logic comes from stuff inside the system God created.

How do we know "logic" doesn't come from "God"?? What if Hegel and the Deists were right, and we have a God of Reason??

So how can something we use to understand what is around us be used to truely understand what goes beyond what is around us.

There is truth to this, in the sense that there are different "levels" of truth --- namely: prerational, rational, and transrational. I believe traditional Christian mysticism calls these the "eye of flesh", "eye of mind", and "eye of contemplation".

I don't feel any of these are mutually exclusive, mind you, or that they don't all fit together.

If you look for it you will find it. If you want I can write some porphecy and I can show it will happen tommorow.

Hee.... this is especially true if the "prophecy" was actually written after the event(s) it claimed to predict (as most of the Biblical ones were). Hindsight, after all, is 20/20.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

In response to ShaolinWolf's posts...

That's how I feel.

*laughs* That's rich.

Weren't you the one that devoted three posts to patting Tulisan/Paul on the back, then apologizing for patting him on the back, then clarifying your apologizing, and then...

Let's face it, wolfman, you tend to ramble.

And if you even think about saying it's all false and true and I'm making it up, go look it up on google.

Oh, and because its on the internet, it must be true!! *laughs*

I can say in so many places it has appeared.

I can also claim my pet dog can talk. Yippy-ki-yay.

By noted Scholars. Say there is no noted references and I'll scream.

How about instead of saying "noted scholars", you actually give specific names and sources?? Y'know, that's like the 5th time I've asked for something like that....

I'd really like to hear back about it, but I can only expect shere criticism saying that it's a hoax or just a coincidence.

Well... yeah.

If we even assume that any of these claims are for real, it still doesn't actually prove anything. You obviously are very well-versed in the subtleties of the scientific method, but I refer you to the different between causation and correlation. Proof of correlation is not proof of causation --- and, unless you can "prove" these things were sent by God hi'self, all you've got is correlation.

Maybe to you, but I find it awfully convincing that those meteor signs showed up 4 years before all those big wars everytime.

Here's a question: how many "meteor signs" show up on dates that have absolutely no historical meaning at all?? Do you have any idea how often meteorites land on Earth??

This is like saying somebody is "psychic" because they get 1 out of 100 predictions right.

And the recent junk that has happened on the Hebrew holidays? Just the Hebrew holidays?!

Whoever said this only happens on the Hebrew holidays?? I don't recall seeing this claim at all. Selective memory, I suppose.

But that was so totally irrelevant.

Gee. Someone writing "totally irrelevant" posts on this thread. Kettle and pot, wolfy, kettle and pot.

Your Sacreligious.

I love little condemnations like this that fundamentalists always hurl around at people, without ever actually defining what they mean and why the person in question fits this description.

The perpetual absence of both logic and evidence. Surprised?? Nah.

When it's decision time, you can change the worlds all around, but in the end it's the same thing whether you say it or not.

Translation: "You're wrong no matter what you say or what evidence and arguments you provide!! And, I'm right without needing any evidence at all just because I say so!!"

I see a trend. Laterz.

 

[someguy]

If you look for it you will find it. If you want I can write some porphecy and I can show it will happen tommorow.
I didn't really read these as I'm off to bed soon and have other stuff to do but here is my prophecy for tommorow.
Light shall come forth from the darkness and all shall begin anew. Pain shall give way to joy and a sign shall apear in the heavens. Look back tommorow and you may well see that the "prophecy" of mine is true.
Thats my opinion of prophecy and there interpretations. I'm not saying that there couldn't be a prohpecy but I'm not so sure about very many prophecies being fufilled as of yet.

Ignore the bad spelling, as I wasn't fully paying attention as I wrote this. But you should know it came true. I woke up with a sore neck went over and hung out with friends and my pain became joy in a manner of speaking as it was replaced by it. The whole light coming forth from darkness was the sun rising or me turning on a light. Anyway you look at it my prophecy came true. How about for y'all?

 

[Cruentus]

For those of you who may not be familiar with classical logic and reasoning, I kept my inferences (set of premises) to only 2 premises to lead to one conclusion. I figured simple is best, because many of you might not be familiar with logic/reasoning proofs.

But, some of you cleverly noticed that a premise is based off things called propositions. A proposition is a statement that could be true or false. Example: "There is a God." [btw, this has nothing to do with who's interpretation of God we are going by; the proposition simply states that there is one]. Everything that I stated as an arguement is logical if you agree with the propositions.

Problem is, not everyone will agree with the propositions. So, someone will have to prove my propositions wrong, or I'll have to prove mine right through the use of premises and conclusions, based off a different set of propositions. These new propositions will have to be agreed upon, or proven as well. This process of arguing over propositions could go on for eternity.

Now remember, as heretic said, just because something is logical, that doesn't mean it is true. Propositions could be true or false. If they are true, then the arguement is true; if false, then arguement is false. However, the arguement will be logical in either case. Now if a premise is proven without question to be fallacious, then that is an ad logicam arguement, and is
a falacy. However, when dealing with "beliefs," we can't prove or disprove the propositions.

Because we are dealing with beliefs, and not material or scientific evidence, your own subconscious and conscious plays a major role. If your consciousness refuses to believe a proposition (such as "There is a God" or "Jesus was an actual human being"), then you can continue to argue propositions for eternity, and blame those who believe in such "nonsense" as being irrational for not providing "evidence" or "proof" for their beliefs. And, because so much has been written both for and against Catholicism and Christianity, I can gauruntee that you'll find evidence and sources on either to support whatever you want.

So...where do we go from here? If one persons consciousness refuses to believe the propositions of the other in an arguement, despite what evidence (material or interpretive) or arguements there are, then there will be no resolve to the conversation. If it was a formal debate, you would have time limits to make your arguements, and the panel would vote on the winner. Since we are on the internet, there could be no resolve to such a conversation. It will just go on until one person becomes tired and gives up, the results only being a lot of wasted time and energy.

So...where fo we go from here again? Believe what you want to believe...and that's it. If your beliefs are based on your own subconsious biases that you refuse work through, then that is your problem. If it is more important for you to be "better" then others rather then to actually seek truth for yourself, then that is your wasted journey. And it is just that...your journey. Do what you want with it.

Laterz

 

[Cruentus]

Word of advise...you can't just make up definitions for words, or redefine words to fit your own agenda, and expect everyone else to believe in YOUR definitions.

Main Entry: elit·ism
Pronunciation: A-'lE-"ti-z&m, i-, E-
Function: noun
1 : leadership or rule by an elite
2 : the selectivity of the elite; especially : SNOBBERY 1 <elitism in choosing new members>
3 : consciousness of being or belonging to an elite
- elit·ist /-'lE-tist/ noun or adjective

Main Entry: elite
Pronunciation: A-'lEt, i-, E-
Function: noun
Etymology: French élite, from Old French eslite, from feminine of eslit, past participle of eslire to choose, from Latin eligere
1 a singular or plural in construction : the choice part : CREAM <the elite of the entertainment world> b singular or plural in construction : the best of a class <superachievers who dominate the computer elite -- Marilyn Chase> c singular or plural in construction : the socially superior part of society <how the elite live -- A P World> <how the F.-speaking elite ... was changing -- Economist> d : a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence <members of the ruling elite> <the intellectual elites of the country> e : a member of such an elite -- usually used in plural <the elites ..., pursuing their studies in Europe -- Robert Wernick>
2 : a typewriter type providing 12 characters to the linear inch
- elite adjective

Source (I picked it because it is on the net for you to look up for yourselves):

http://www.m-w.com/

Now, heretic, you can't just throw words like "elitism" or "ethnocentricism" and apply whatever definitions you want to them. I'm sorry, but, "We're right, you're wrong, and we don't need any stinkin' logic or evidence to prove it, nyah, nyah, nyah!" is not a definition of elitism, or even a good example of it. If you read what I have been saying, I am not even making the "I'm right your wrong" arguement. Regardless, believing that someone is correct over someone else is not elitism any way you cut it; you have to believe that one group/person is "better" then another for it to be elitism.

Anyways, you can't put whatever definition you want on a word and expect everyone else to follow your special definition.

PAUL

 

[qizmoduis]

I will say, however, that this particular point is something that is traditionally claimed by most sects of Christianity --- that if you believe "correctly", you will go to "Heaven" and are "saved"; whereas, if you believe "incorrectly", you will go to "Hell" and are "damned". You may not personally believe it, Paul, but your religion does --- unless the Catholic church has renounced the notions of Heaven, Hell, and Christ being the "only way" in the last couple'a years.

Actually, the Catholic position on salvation is a bit different than other christian denominations. The Catholic position is that anyone can be saved provided they DEMONSTRATE a state of grace via works and behavior. An actual affiliation with the church or even an actual adherence to doctrine is not specifically required (although it is preferred).

This is a relatively new doctrine, of course, to account for folks like Ghandi, etc.

I've probably missed a few details. I'm sure Paul can dredge them up, since I've been out of circulation in church circles for over a decade.

 

[someguy]

Well debateing the eixistance of a God wouldn't belong on this thread really. Still I can't resist this one. If there were no God gods what ever you want to say think of the implications that it would have you would live for nothing it wouldn't really matter if you did good or not beacause you simply would stop being soon enough. Include Pascals wager argument and you have good reason to belivve in A God gods higher being what every you want to say Inn my opinion anyways.
Oh and Hertic you got me. You defeated my arguments to some extent. Of course for my belifes though my argument works but for others peoples views of God I supose it won't always work. Silly me I allways forget some tiny little itsy bitsy thing like other people. Sort of anyways but let us use Beothius. He said there were 4 uh can't think of it really. Man this is going to convince you guys ight here. Anyways there issomething imagination reason and insight. All living things have the first thing. Imagination is possesed by all things animal and above humans and above have reason and God alone has divine insight. So my thing works on Beothius. Hegel and the Deists who cares about them and all the others you mentioned. 'm the only one that matters right? I think therefore I am but I don't know about you guys. Do you think? can you prove you think? Can you prove to me you exist? I don't think so. A person can only prove to themselves that they exist with Descartes Archemedian point. Ok no that I have taken this of on a tangent peace out and I know I mispelled lots of stuf but I got to run so I can't fix it right now.

 

[Cruentus]

Sorry for the multi-posts. Last one...

I love the way that people so often, who are not of my faith, like to dictate their misconceptions of what my faith believes without providing evidence that this is actually what my faith believes. So, let me clear a few things up.

For those of you curious, there is nothing in the Catholic Doctrine that says that a human being has the right to condem anyone to hell. So there isn't this sense of "If you don't believe what I believe then, you aren't 'saved' so you go to 'hell.' " In fact, we believe that ultimatily God sets the standards, and people choose through their actions whether or not they go to hell or heaven. "God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1037)

So we believe that a person basically sends themselves to hell through their actions.

And again, no where does it say that we have the ability to judge whether or not someone will go to hell or not.

If you'd like some good books on the subject, PM me, and I can dig up some titles that would be appropriate for you.

Have a good day!

PAUL :asian:

I've probably missed a few details. I'm sure Paul can dredge them up, since I've been out of circulation in church circles for over a decade.

Quiz...this post wasn't directed towards you, however. Thanks for your insight. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

In response to Tulisan/Paul's new set of posts...

1) "There is a God." [btw, this has nothing to do with who's interpretation of God we are going by; the proposition simply states that there is one]. Gonna have to disagree with you there, Paul. In the context that you used this proposition, it most certainly did have to do with which "version" of God we're talking about --- you were clearly assuming this "God" had qualities and a nature familiar to traditional Western philosophy. Your entire duality of "God" and "man", as well as "perceived truth" and "absolute truth" was testament to this. No kenosis or advaita there.

2) Everything that I stated as an arguement is logical if you agree with the propositions. Basically, yeah. Problem is, in such instances, as to whether the propositions themselves are "logical" or not --- remember, we can make very logical proofs for rather illogical statements. Which, of course, brings us to the dichotomy of logic vs. truth.

3) When dealing with "beliefs," we can't prove or disprove the propositions. Says you. Beliefs are disproven all the time in a rational-empirical sense (most "mythical" beliefs, of course, were not formulated for the purpose of satisying rational-empirical prerequisites, which is a rather modern collective phenomena anyway). Of course, there are some beliefs that just plain cannot be disproven (faith, or possibly intuition, is the basis of such notions here). Thus, it ultimately depends on the particular belief being questioned.

4) Because we are dealing with beliefs, and not material or scientific evidence, your own subconscious and conscious plays a major role. True as that may be, this is no excuse to just retreat into realms of "this is your belief, now let's not argue because arguing is bad", as has been implied. In fact, since we can't actually "prove" anyone's subconscious has anything to do with their beliefs here --- or, if it does, the specific influences --- it really has no real relevance to the current discussion at all.

5) Since we are on the internet, there could be no resolve to such a conversation. It will just go on until one person becomes tired and gives up, the results only being a lot of wasted time and energy. Translation: No one can question my beliefs on here, so please don't. Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

I also notice that this "magic rule" you are relying on here doesn't seem to apply to your belief that no debates could ever be resolved on the internet, or with discussions like these. Another performative contradiction, in which an arbitrary "universal rule" is posited but by some twist of fate doesn't apply to the person positing it.

I doubt anyone here actually believes these topics are going to be "resolved" online. That's not the point. Personally, I discuss these topics because I want to discuss them --- and I'm not going to shrink away every time someone questions my "propositions". I have no intention at all of "winning" or "resolving" anything --- just discussing.

6) Now, heretic, you can't just throw words like "elitism" or "ethnocentricism" and apply whatever definitions you want to them. Poppycock. One of the definitions of elitism that you listed was "consciousness of being or belonging to an elite". Mythical Prefigurement sure fits that bill, when we regard it sees all other religious doctrines as "pointing to", "prefiguring", or "proving" its own. In other words, they're all wrong and we're all right --- we're special, they're not; we have truth, they do not; our religion is truth, theirs is just an approximation or allusion to truth; ours is the summation and zenith of all human endeavor, theirs is just cannon fodder leading up to that point.

Explain to me how that is not elitism?? Or irrational??

7) If you read what I have been saying, I am not even making the "I'm right your wrong" arguement. Then you oppose Mythical Prefigurement, as that would directly contradict its claims.

8) I love the way that people so often, who are not of my faith, like to dictate their misconceptions of what my faith believes without providing evidence that this is actually what my faith believes. Yup, silly me for relying on the Bible as a source for my claims. I forgot the Catholics don't use Bibles.

I you want, I can dish out specific verses.

9) For those of you curious, there is nothing in the Catholic Doctrine that says that a human being has the right to condem anyone to hell. So there isn't this sense of "If you don't believe what I believe then, you aren't 'saved' so you go to 'hell.' " In fact, we believe that ultimatily God sets the standards, and people choose through their actions whether or not they go to hell or heaven. "God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1037)

So we believe that a person basically sends themselves to hell through their actions.

That all just sounds like wishy-washy political correctness to mine ears.

Catholics believe there is a Hell, but then claim they don't know how to avoid going there (a curious notion for people that submit themselves to Church every week). Then the notion of a "mortal sin" is thrown in, contradicting that statement.

In other words, "no one can tell if a human is going to Hell or not --- but if you commit a mortal sin, you ARE going to Hell. The Church, of course, knows what all these 'mortal sins' are." No, no, not contradictory at all.

I can understand the basis of these pronouncements, of course --- its an attempt to adapt an archaic concrete-literal belief to modern humanistic and rationalistic philosophy. It just seems its gonna be while before this is actually done successfuly...

Laterz.

 

[someguy]

Heretic show me any philosophy worth the paper it was written on that isn't hypocritical or just plain BS.
Show me any religion that has no APPARENT contradictions
Ah the fun of me calling you a Heretic well that’s the name you chose so I'm not really calling you a Heretic just saying your name.

 

[heretic888]

Heretic show me any philosophy worth the paper it was written on that isn't hypocritical or just plain BS.

Sure, thing --- Advaita Vedanta, Hegelian theory, Neoplatonism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Shingon Mikkyo, Tendai Mikkyo, Valentinian Christianity, Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, Sri Aurobindo's system, Zen Buddhism, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Mahayana Buddhism as a whole, Philo Judaeus, Pythagoreanism, etcetera ad infinitum.

These are, of course, based on my own personal standards.

Show me any religion that has no APPARENT contradictions

I would point you to many of the Eastern wisdom traditions, in that they openly embrace paradox and non-duality. Meaning, they are honest about it. Christianity would probably do this, too, if the esoteric core of the religions wasn't almost systematically destroyed by centuries of political ambition (you can, of course, find nuggets of transcendental wisdom within Christianity from time to time --- these individuals are typically excommunicated or murdered, however).

Ah the fun of me calling you a Heretic well that’s the name you chose so I'm not really calling you a Heretic just saying your name.

If you say so.

Laterz.

 

[someguy]

Pythagoreanism everything is made of numbers. Well that’s great right there. Of course this is unless I’m confusing that with something else.

How well do you know about dvaita Vedanta, Hegelian theory, Neoplatonism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Shingon Mikkyo, Tendai Mikkyo, Valentinian Christianity, Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, Sri Aurobindo's system, Zen Buddhism, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Mahayana Buddhism as a whole, Philo Judaeus, Pythagoreanism. Are you sure you know them all well enough to say that they aren't full of BS or hypocritical.

As to the heretic comment its just amusing that you go by the name heretic. This as we discuss matters of a religious nature. That’s not really important though.

 

[heretic888]

Pythagoreanism everything is made of numbers. Well that’s great right there. Of course this is unless I’m confusing that with something else.

That is an extremely dumbed-down and superficial interpretation of Pythagorean philosophy. Its about as inane as the notion that Platonism is just about weird Ideas up in the ether influencing the material world.

How well do you know about dvaita Vedanta, Hegelian theory, Neoplatonism, Vajrayana Buddhism, Shingon Mikkyo, Tendai Mikkyo, Valentinian Christianity, Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, Sri Aurobindo's system, Zen Buddhism, Shankara, Nagarjuna, Mahayana Buddhism as a whole, Philo Judaeus, Pythagoreanism. Are you sure you know them all well enough to say that they aren't full of BS or hypocritical.

I'm pretty familiar with most of them, actually --- I could even discuss specific concepts and terminology with you, if you wish. But, that would probably be better-suited for another thread.

In any event, its pretty arrogant to think that just because you believe all philosophies are "hypocritical or full of BS" that they actually are. You will find, in general, that most of the "BS" in philosophy comes from idiotic interpretations and translations --- and not from the philosophies themselves.

As to the heretic comment its just amusing that you go by the name heretic. This as we discuss matters of a religious nature. That’s not really important though.

Actually, my username has a significance that anyone familiar with Greek gematria would give a knowing nod and chuckle to. Its kind of an inside joke, I suppose.

Laterz.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

You are, simply, all wrong. Worship me. I am the truth.

Wait a minute...oh, there's my meds. (hang on, now).

Better. Where was I? Oh yeah. LOVE THESE POSTS!!!

D.

Note to self: Avoid logging on while missing anti-psychotic medications. Makes me sound like that other guy...who says that thing...you know, about that stuff. Where am I?