Theology Club: The Big Picture

[Arsenios]

You think God is a part of creation.

- a thing I have never said,
nor would ever say.

Are you forgetful?
Or is it worse than that?

God is also real
and that 'reality'
(the real universe)
includes everything that is real.

Grandstanding is not a good idea...

Arsenios

 

[Nihilo]

equivocation.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about equivocation recently. And with it, these other terms: ambiguity, and homonyms.

I feel that there is a lot of trouble communicating within the same language with others because of these issues, and that equivocation frequently occurs inadvertently and unconsciously. The most obvious manifestation of this is when we put into our own words what our interlocutors are saying---IOW, what we think they're saying, how we hear and read and otherwise interpret what is being said.

So frequently, the discussion/argument degenerates immediately into retorts like, "I never said that," and, "That's not what I meant."

I think it's a plague. I don't have a solution.

 

[Clete]

Are you forgetful?
Or is it worse than that?



Grandstanding is not a good idea...

Arsenios

What does your oddball doctrine say about lying?

Or is it stupidity that is the problem?

DR was very clear, he was making the point that God is real and that he was using the term "universe" to include all real things.
You either understood that when you read it, in which case the above post is a lie or you're stupid.

You pick!

 

[Desert Reign]

Why are you using the words "value" and "worth" in place of "identity"?

False assumption. I am using the words 'value' and 'worth' in the ordinary sense, like TIP suggested.

the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something

It seems like a useful definition to me. You gave examples of where the worth of something was external, such as a currency note. I don't dispute that such value exists in some specific cases due to conventions, but the value I am talking about is universal, value which is intrinsic.

A things identity is not subjective, that much is certain. Something is what it is - period. A is A. This is called the Law of Identity. It is the foundation of all knowledge, all communication, all coherent thought. It cannot be denied without the denier acknowledging its veracity in his attempt to deny it. You might say it is the ultimate objective truth. It is the singular truth that makes truth itself meaningful.

Things can have more than one kind of value. It may be a potato peeler to one person but a lethal weapon to another. But in either case that value is intrinsic to the object. It is a lethal weapon because someone can use it as such. It is a potato peeler because someone can use it as such. It could probably be used for other things too. It is quite a valuable object.

I totally get that things are what they are because they are real. Is that sufficient to proceed or is this use of the word "value" necessary to the rest of your argument?

It is value that gives rise to morality.

Are you forgetful?
Or is it worse than that?
Grandstanding is not a good idea...
Arsenios

What Clete said. Your inabiity to use words with their plain sense seems also to extend to understanding them in their plain sense too.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about equivocation recently. And with it, these other terms: ambiguity, and homonyms.

I feel that there is a lot of trouble communicating within the same language with others because of these issues, and that equivocation frequently occurs inadvertently and unconsciously. The most obvious manifestation of this is when we put into our own words what our interlocutors are saying---IOW, what we think they're saying, how we hear and read and otherwise interpret what is being said.

So frequently, the discussion/argument degenerates immediately into retorts like, "I never said that," and, "That's not what I meant."

I think it's a plague. I don't have a solution.

Actually, I already suspected Arsenios had totally misunderstood me but at first I didn't react because I had more important things to do. It was not me degenerating the discussion. It was only at a later point that I chose to raise the issue. Arsenios has such strong presuppositions that he is unable to appreciate what others are saying. He sees everything in a single light, a single context, which in this case has led him to say some quite unkind things about me. Not that I mind. This is TOL. And it only shows him up, not me. He was equivocating whether or not he misunderstood me.
You don't have a solution, but I do. It is called openness. It is not merely a theological or philosophical system but it is an ethic. It's an ethic based on the nature of reality. Everything that is real exists through its dynamic relationships with everything else in reality. God is the same. He is open to his relationships with things in his creation. Openness is very much at the heart of God because openness is the basis of life. Our openness to one another is crucial to our ability to love and to grow. Being closed only stifles life and growth. Sadly, Calvinism and other forms of dualism such as the one Arsenios preaches, are the antithesis of this openness.

 

[TIPlatypus]

Why are you using the words "value" and "worth" in place of "identity"?

A things identity is not subjective, that much is certain. Something is what it is - period. A is A. This is called the Law of Identity. It is the foundation of all knowledge, all communication, all coherent thought. It cannot be denied without the denier acknowledging its veracity in his attempt to deny it. You might say it is the ultimate objective truth. It is the singular truth that makes truth itself meaningful.

What that has to do with whether a thing is valuable or not I still don't see.


I understand and agree with everything here except the use of the term "value" (highlighted above).

I totally get that things are what they are because they are real. Is that sufficient to proceed or is this use of the word "value" necessary to the rest of your argument?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I answered this question here:

value - the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

So a scrap piece of paper that you could not care less about would still be worth your attention, even if it is merely to throw it away. Everything has value.

This is the relationship between value and identity.

You replied:

Alright fine, granting that, for that sake of argument, so what?

How does the subjective notion of value help to construct a framework for the development of an objective morality?

To which Desert Reign Replied:

It isn't subjective. If it were, you would be able to treat this chair as a computer. I thought you already agreed that. What it is, is relational. As I said previously, You may call it a stool, or you may call it an armchair, you could even call it a 'sea of comfort' and I think I would know what you mean; so it is indeed relational, what you call it depends on your particular relationship to it. But you can't call it a computer because it is intrinsically not a computer. Its worth is intrinsic to itself and that is why it constrains you.

In the same way, morality is not objective either. I think I made this clear in an earlier comment. I am not accepting Socrates' horn of the dilemma. Morality is relational just the same. But I will hopefully have time to expand on that in another post.

But the important thing to note, as I have been saying, is that a thing's value is not defined externally. Nor is the state of the universe in any given moment determined by any external rule, force or being. Arsenios wants to go down that route. It only means that he cannot answer direct questions about God. And he uses lovely sounding words like apophatic and cataphatic to give some kind of credibility to his philosophy, but in reality they just mean that he cannot give a rational, coherent justification of his beliefs.
But I have no desire to single him out (and he of course is only parrotting his Orthodox traditions): all hard dualists must suffer from one kind of paradox or another. He is unable to state that God is real, and that to me is the saddest thing - where have we got to, what have we become, if we cannot bring ourselves to make such an obvious statement about the God we are supposed to believe in?
It is no wonder that Christianity falls into meaningless rituals, having lost its motivation, its ethics and finally its very God, and then trying to redefine itself through political activism, cultural richness or social welfare - anything to avoid having to admit to the obvious fact that God is real and that the consequences of this fact are also real. Because, like this chair, God doesn't let you call him a force, or say that he has two wills, or that his actions are arbitrary and because, like this chair, God is manifest to man - through Jesus Christ - and is not hidden so that we have to guess or deduce what kind of being or thing he is but he is directly and tangibly available and no one can say that he is unknowable or that nothing can be said about him.

To which you replied: (the quote I started this post with)
I hope you get the picture.

We agree with you Clete. Please, agree with us. Then we can get on with it.

 

[Clete]

False assumption. I am using the words 'value' and 'worth' in the ordinary sense, like TIP suggested.

His definition was a subjective one, which I pointed out and to which you said that if value were subjective then I could call a chair a computer. Calling an object what it is vs. what it is not is a matter of identity, not value. The former is objective, the later is subjective.

One chair that is valuable to me, for whatever reason, may be worthless to you, for whatever reason. It's still a chair but the value of that chair depends on WHY its valued by whomever values it.

Things can have more than one kind of value. It may be a potato peeler to one person but a lethal weapon to another. But in either case that value is intrinsic to the object. It is a lethal weapon because someone can use it as such. It is a potato peeler because someone can use it as such. It could probably be used for other things too. It is quite a valuable object.

Now you're talking about something's utility, which I agree is a factor in an object's potential value but even taking a specific utility, the value is subjective. A potato peeler's value as a weapon might be much greater for a person attempting to defend themselves with it against an attacker. In that example, the potato peeler is potentially worth the person's life!

It is value that gives rise to morality.

How so?

And

How then is morality not subjective?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nihilo]

It was not me degenerating the discussion.

I didn't say that it was, but it's interesting that that's how you read it. No, what I was talking about is that it's literally impossible for two people to discuss something when neither of them apprehend the particular homonyms (of a number of possibilities, all of which save one must be eliminated) (and that is, i.e., this is about ambiguity) that the others are using. Invariably when two people are in conflict, they are simply in conflict over which homonyms that we each choose to insert wherever there is ambiguity. It's not, "I don't like you, so I'm going to choose a nasty one," it's more like, "I chose the nasty one and now I hate you."

It was only at a later point that I chose to raise the issue. Arsenios has such strong presuppositions that he is unable to appreciate what others are saying. He sees everything in a single light, a single context, which in this case has led him to say some quite unkind things about me.

Arsenios' jibes are harmless, be honest? Arsenios is harmless, and likes to rile up others who are easily riled up. Most of us enjoy the show. Right now, you are seeing the limits of Arsenios, and they are mighty, and what I keep trying to tell people is that for those who are so serious about theology that we put this much time into it, we need some satisfaction, and there's always going to be a chink in your armor, no matter what armor that is, save for one, and that is the Holy Catholic faith.

Not that I mind. This is TOL. And it only shows him up, not me.

I was called untoward things myself over very light matters here. I wasn't surprised. This is what TOL is. It's almost a perfect replica of the notion of the American quote-unquote Wild West. We've all got blasters and some of us have light sabres and some of us know how to use them. It's weird and awesome.

He was equivocating whether or not he misunderstood me.

It's correct. While it is what's called an informal logical fallacy as opposed to the formal syllogistic fallacies, it is objectively possible to infallibly determine if and when it occurs. Quite a bit, it occurs inadvertently. That is the problem.

You don't have a solution, but I do. It is called openness. It is not merely a theological or philosophical system but it is an ethic. It's an ethic based on the nature of reality. Everything that is real exists through its dynamic relationships with everything else in reality. God is the same. He is open to his relationships with things in his creation. Openness is very much at the heart of God because openness is the basis of life. Our openness to one another is crucial to our ability to love and to grow. Being closed only stifles life and growth. Sadly, Calvinism and other forms of dualism such as the one Arsenios preaches, are the antithesis of this openness.

Do you mean "openness" like Openness and Open theism?

 

[Desert Reign]

His definition was a subjective one, which I pointed out and to which you said that if value were subjective then I could call a chair a computer. Calling an object what it is vs. what it is not is a matter of identity, not value. The former is objective, the later is subjective.

But, that is just your opinion. When you say that value is subjective, my concern is that you mean this particular nuance of the word (which happens to be the most common undersanding).

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

I already said, as you indeed quote me, that I do not believe value is subjective. In fact I think that the whole issue of subjective versus objective is a false distinction and arises from unnecessary left-over dualistic thinking habits. In my own philosophy of openness, this distinction plays no part. Please note that I have staked my claim on the intrinsic nature of value. This is not at all the same as the objective nature of it. These things are not the same in my way of thinking. Perhaps it is that you have assumed that when I say that value is intrinsic, you think I mean that it is objective. Perhaps I will make this clearer if and when I proceed to the next part of my response to Euthyphro's question, how we determine the morality of actions (or the worth of things).

I didn't say that it was, but it's interesting that that's how you read it.

I think you have been hoisted in your own net there! I wasn't sure whether you thought my response was degenerative or not. And my second response didn't actually accuse you of anything or misrepresent you.

No, what I was talking about is that it's literally impossible for two people to discuss something when neither of them apprehend the particular homonyms (of a number of possibilities, all of which save one must be eliminated) (and that is, i.e., this is about ambiguity) that the others are using. Invariably when two people are in conflict, they are simply in conflict over which homonyms that we each choose to insert wherever there is ambiguity. It's not, "I don't like you, so I'm going to choose a nasty one," it's more like, "I chose the nasty one and now I hate you."

OK.

Arsenios' jibes are harmless, be honest? Arsenios is harmless, and likes to rile up others who are easily riled up. Most of us enjoy the show. Right now, you are seeing the limits of Arsenios, and they are mighty, and what I keep trying to tell people is that for those who are so serious about theology that we put this much time into it, we need some satisfaction, and there's always going to be a chink in your armor, no matter what armor that is, save for one, and that is the Holy Catholic faith.

I agree that Arsenios is mostly harmless. But he is useful as an example of how silly hard dualism can be. If the Holy Catholic faith was as watertight as you suggest, then there ought to exist a form of words that expresses that watertightness, which is plain to all and you would hence be offering clear and indisputable arguments on why its particular dualism is justified, gently pointing out my errors, rather than commenting on the processes of argumentation. Apophatic theology seems analogous to me of liberalism in the protestant churches. Can you do any better?

It's correct. While it is what's called an informal logical fallacy as opposed to the formal syllogistic fallacies, it is objectively possible to infallibly determine if and when it occurs. Quite a bit, it occurs inadvertently. That is the problem.
Do you mean "openness" like Openness and Open theism?

Inadvertence is not an excuse. If you inadvertently put up your umbrella in the rain and it pokes someone's eye out, you could well be deemed culpable for not taking sufficient care. Of course the debates here are voluntary so there is no issue of negligence in equivocation, however, I don't see why we can't raise ethical issues here. My issue is that Arsenios is so wrapped up in his own little world that he fails to understand the plain words of another. I am in no way personally offended, I am in no way concerned about Arsenios for himself. I am only raising it as an ethical issue that others can consider. I think it is more ethical for a person to be open to others than to be closed. I raise the issue and others can see for themselves.

But it is time to move on. I live in hope that I will be able to make another post and so I want to make it count. My next post will be to introduce part 2 of my argument, regardless of what others may interject. I think this part 1 has already been aired enough now.

 

[Clete]

But, that is just your opinion. When you say that value is subjective, my concern is that you mean this particular nuance of the word (which happens to be the most common undersanding).

It isn't just my opinion! It not only is what "value" means, by definition, but it is inherent in the definition that you said, "seems like a useful definition".

If you want to adopt an objective definition of the word "value" that makes value an aspect of a thing's identity then it is on you to not only provide that definition but to substantiate it as valid.

I already said, as you indeed quote me, that I do not believe value is subjective. In fact I think that the whole issue of subjective versus objective is a false distinction and arises from unnecessary left-over dualistic thinking habits.

This would directly contradict your premise that a thing (including a moment in time) is what it is and is not defined by anything outside it.

You are on unbelievably shaky philosophical ground here, DR. You cannot escape objective vs. subjective. Things are either one or the other. It's called the Law of Excluded Middle. A proposition is or it is not. It cannot be both. The universe is an "either - or" universe, not a "both - and" universe. The universe (i.e. reality) will force you to choose. In this case, value is either an aspect of a thing's nature (objective) or it is a matter of opinion (subjective). You cannot have it both ways.

In my own philosophy of openness, this distinction plays no part. Please note that I have staked my claim on the intrinsic nature of value. This is not at all the same as the objective nature of it.

Of course it is the same. The intrinsic nature of a thing does not depend on my mind or upon any other mind. It is what it is. This is the fundamental law of all knowledge! A is A and it makes no difference what I have to say about it or whether I say anything about it at all. It is the fact that it is intrinsic to it's nature that makes it objective.

These things are not the same in my way of thinking. Perhaps it is that you have assumed that when I say that value is intrinsic, you think I mean that it is objective.

I do not get to decide such things. A thing's intrinsic nature is not subject to my mind (subjective) BY DEFINITION. It's not an assumption, its the meaning of the words we are using.

Perhaps I will make this clearer if and when I proceed to the next part of my response to Euthyphro's question, how we determine the morality of actions (or the worth of things).

I'm very interested in hearing the fleshed out argument. I do hope, however, that I've demonstrated that you have some serious work to do in regards to establishing the veracity of you major premise.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nihilo]

I think you have been hoisted in your own net there! I wasn't sure whether you thought my response was degenerative or not. And my second response didn't actually accuse you of anything or misrepresent you.

Nice try. I like your spunk.

I agree that Arsenios is mostly harmless.

Arsenios is completely harmless and is in fact more of a healing physician than any sort of belligerent. 'Heart of gold, that one.

But he is useful as an example of how silly hard dualism can be. If the Holy Catholic faith was as watertight as you suggest, then there ought to exist a form of words that expresses that watertightness, which is plain to all and you would hence be offering clear and indisputable arguments on why its particular dualism is justified, gently pointing out my errors, rather than commenting on the processes of argumentation. Apophatic theology seems analogous to me of liberalism in the protestant churches. Can you do any better?

I don't have to do better. That's my point. The papacy or Holy See has that job, and has been at it now for almost 2000 years.

Inadvertence is not an excuse. If you inadvertently put up your umbrella in the rain and it pokes someone's eye out, you could well be deemed culpable for not taking sufficient care.

Criminally? Civilly perhaps, but even then, isn't it a question of whether you ought to have known better, for it to rise to the level of negligence? What if you didn't know better for whatever reason? What if you were born and raised in a desert and had never used/worked an umbrella?

Of course the debates here are voluntary so there is no issue of negligence in equivocation

Well, that's different. If you open up your mouth or your browser window and start typing, then you ought to not be negligent about equivocation. It's a known (all the way back to Aristotle maybe?) logical error. Inadvertent equivocation is I'm sure how the error typically occurs.

I don't see why we can't raise ethical issues here.

Go right ahead. There's not much better place to do it.

My issue is that Arsenios is so wrapped up in his own little world that he fails to understand the plain words of another.

I don't see that. Is it possible you're wrong? Maybe I'm wrong.

I am in no way personally offended, I am in no way concerned about Arsenios for himself. I am only raising it as an ethical issue that others can consider. I think it is more ethical for a person to be open to others than to be closed.

I'm sure in the eternal kingdom that this will be the prevailing ethic, but in this fallen world it's a very tall order for the average person to practice complete openness with others, especially anonymous people who dwell on an internet forum known for its hard knocks.

I raise the issue and others can see for themselves.

But it is time to move on. I live in hope that I will be able to make another post and so I want to make it count. My next post will be to introduce part 2 of my argument, regardless of what others may interject. I think this part 1 has already been aired enough now.

"Big picture." What's that mean? Can you explain it in less than two words? No? Then it's ambiguous. The inefficient explanation is unambiguous. It cannot be honestly confused. This is the implicit lesson from the very peak of the mountain of teachers and teaching institutions in this world. "Keep your words few" does not apply to top shelf teachers. Inadvertent ambiguity leads to inadvertent equivocation.

And I don't need to prove that the Holy Catholic faith is the summit of faith, doctrine and morals because the overwhelming prominence of the Holy Catholic Church in this world suffices. If one wishes to knock this faith tradition off its rightful first place among religions and religious and theological thought, one must put forth an alternative, not that the alternative is nothing. We reject that, as a species; we know it's false. We know that one of these is right, and not more than one (though we anticipate overlap since one of them is correct, so naturally we expect that its influence extends beyond the observable borders of its ostensive self), though we leave open the possibility that we don't have it yet, although, this is an alternative to the most obviously successful paganism that the world's ever seen. And yes, I mean the Church. It's a type of paganism. I say it because paganisms came first, I say that our Maker's chosen people's religion was a paganism also, a type of paganism, an earlier paganism than the Church, though the Church as a paganism clearly sprouts from the Israelite paganism, which was planted spiritually as a seed in the earth, as the body of the man Jesus/Joshua, Who is our Maker in the flesh; our Lord Jesus Christ.

Or something like that.

So you can't just say that the Church is the wrong paganism because you believe that the ideal/perfect/ultimate paganism hasn't arrived yet. That's going beyond what is written and what is only oral tradition. Beyond them both. You have to understand that you're presuming when you argue that our Maker hasn't already given us the perfect paganism. He did. He said He would, and He did.

And you can't argue that humans aren't inherently pagans because literally all of history contradicts you.

I mean, you can, but that's a . . . long row to hoe.

So you have to accept that the Holy Catholic Church is the correct paganism. And that leans heavily towards accepting further that the Holy Catholic faith is the correct faith/faith tradition.

 

[Desert Reign]

Clete and I agree with each other really. He just doesn't quite realise it yet! He thinks of value as something primarily concerned with a person's relation to the object of value whereas I see it as more to do with the object itself. Actually I see it as both but I have been laying stress on the intrinsic nature of value in order to contrast it with dualistic notions (especially Calvinism) whereby both objects and the course of history itself have no value at all in themselves but only what is allotted to them externally. I have no doubt at all that Clete agrees with this. Not that I seek Clete's agreement as some kind of confirmation of my beliefs. But since he has been a consistent contributor to this discussion, he deserves serious responses.
Unlike Nihilo, who thinks a discussion consists of him telling us that the Catholic church is right and he doesn't need to explain why but that everyone else needs to explain and prove why their beliefs are right, failing which he claims victory. I'm afraid I haven't got time to debate on these terms.
But I digress, I was going to try to explain the how. My part 1 explained why it is that morality exists at all. My part 2 explains how we decide what is moral and what is not. This is really where Euthyphro gets a good response and hopefully dies a death - because the Euthyphro question is about how we make moral judgements. Do we make such judgements on the basis of God's dictat or do we make them based on some other legal system that has jurisdiction over our consciences?

And as with all good dilemmas, the answer is of course, neither.

To introduce my thinking on this subject I shall try to say a bit more about issues arising from dualism. I said earlier that as a whole, the universe was self-valuing. I'd like to stress that this is a matter of logic, not of substance. I am not inventing a new kind of metaphysics. I am not a process theologian. I am simply describing some of the principles of good logic. So I say again, God is real. The created world is real. It is a matter of logic that reality consists both of God and his creation. Indeed, logically, one needn't limit reality to just those two things; but we don't need to go down that route do we?

So in what I am about to explain, I use the term 'real universe' and other similar terms in that sense, i.e. everything that is real. And hence I can speak of certain principles that apply to both God and his creation. It is this logical methodology that is so alien to dualists. And is why for example Arsenios was unable to come to terms with it. For dualists, it is anathema to think of God as logically on a par with his creation. Dualism doesn't mean that God is in a different physical kind of universe such as in the statement 'God is spirit, the world is matter'. Dualism is more than that. It is the view that God is logically different from the world. This means that language itself cannot be shared between God and his creation. In this kind of dualism, you cannot say that God is real in the same sense that you can say we are real. Indeed, as came up in the discussion with Arsenios, in this dualistc way of thinking, there is nothing you can say about God at all. He is utter mystery, he is utter ineffability, he is utterly unknowable. In such radical dualism, you cannot even say God is creator and that we are his creation - because in doing so you are assuming a logical relationship of shared language by which God falls under a definition of 'creator'. In this kind of dualism, there is no such language. In this kind of dualism God can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift; he can make a square circle and so on. You can tell a real dualist by this. The real ones tell you that God can create a square circle. But the ones who merely claim to be dualist - or who pay lip service to it - don't go this far. They will agree with you that God can do anything that is logically possible. And in saying this, they are implicitly acknowledging my own views here, that both God and we share the same universe: the universe that contains all real things. And that when we say that God is loving, we mean 'loving' in the same way we would mean it if we said 'Joe is a loving father'; and when we say 'circle' or 'square' we mean it in the same way when speaking of God as when speaking of ourselves.

to be continued

 

[Nihilo]

Unlike Nihilo, who thinks a discussion consists of him telling us that the Catholic church is right and he doesn't need to explain why but that everyone else needs to explain and prove why their beliefs are right, failing which he claims victory. I'm afraid I haven't got time to debate on these terms.

That's a shame since I think it's the most important thing to be considering, regardless of our circumstances. By design.

Anyway, if you haven't, you might want to take a look at Wittgenstein's Tractatus. It deals with language itself in a very erudite (for the most part) and logical way. It helped me to see the world aright. And point 7 is not an imperative, but a trivial statement of fact.

 

[Clete]

That's a shame since I think it's the most important thing to be considering, regardless of our circumstances. By design.

Then make the argument!

Something isn't raised to the level of "the most important thing to be considered" because you say so.

Don't just make claims, establish them!
Make the argument!

If you don't or can't make the argument then that's fine but don't complain or be surprised if you fail to persuade anyone or if people don't take your posts seriously.

 

[Clete]

DR,

Consider simply using the term "reality" in place of "universe". The typical person will take "universe" to mean the created order, planets, stars, galaxies, gravity, electricity, atoms, magnetism, etc.

I fully understand that you are using the term to include more than that but that's because I've read all of your posts. Not everyone is going to do that and your use of the term "universe" is going to cause confusion.

Just my two cents!

 

[Nihilo]

Then make the argument!

Something isn't raised to the level of "the most important thing to be considered" because you say so.

Don't just make claims, establish them!
Make the argument!

If you don't or can't make the argument then that's fine but don't complain or be surprised if you fail to persuade anyone or if people don't take your posts seriously.

What argument! You all are the ones who are ignoring this huge honking organization that's literally everywhere by now, and historically stems from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. You all have to explain that! What's it doing here! Who are they?

Every single non-Catholic position has to and does accuse this enormous monster of an organization, the largest the world's ever seen, and the oldest by a wide margin, of being "apostate" and demonic. That's dreck! Amateurish. Facile. Weak. Sad.

Silly!

You all make the argument!

I don't have to. I've got Scripture and history (and not esoteric history either) on my side. What've you got on yours?

Hole lot of nothin's; all I see. Word games.

 

[Clete]

What argument! You all are the ones who are ignoring this huge honking organization that's literally everywhere by now, and historically stems from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. You all have to explain that! What's it doing here! Who are they?

Every single non-Catholic position has to and does accuse this enormous monster of an organization, the largest the world's ever seen, and the oldest by a wide margin, of being "apostate" and demonic. That's dreck! Amateurish. Facile. Weak. Sad.

Silly!

You all make the argument!

I don't have to. I've got Scripture and history (and not esoteric history either) on my side. What've you got on yours?

Hole lot of nothin's; all I see. Word games.

Every sect of Christianity that has every existed (and by the way, the Catholic church is NOT the oldest) universally claim to have scripture and history. What most all of them lack is the ability to make an argument. All they ever make is claims. They claim scripture but make no scriptural argument. They claim history and make no historical argument. It's just claims, claims, claims.

Make the argument or just shut up! No one cares any more about your claims than you do about a word I've said in this post.

 

[Nihilo]

'Sky's blue. Your turn.

 

[Arsenios]

Every sect of Christianity that has every existed (and by the way, the Catholic church is NOT the oldest) universally claim to have scripture and history. What most all of them lack is the ability to make an argument. All they ever make is claims. They claim scripture but make no scriptural argument. They claim history and make no historical argument. It's just claims, claims, claims.

Make the argument or just shut up! No one cares any more about your claims than you do about a word I've said in this post.

In philosophy, one challenges on the basis of premises, and in intelligent philosophy, on the basis of the rule of fundamentality of premises, and the only means of proof is by reference to the reality which we all apprehend in various ways...

The history of Christianity in the first few centuries was one of being ignored and being persecuted... The persecutions resulted in the martyring of Christians in a lot of pretty diabolical ways - I can describe some if you doubt me - but the very word martyr MEANS witness... The witness of the Christian Faith is not of the world we commonly apprehend, but is instead one of the world we do NOT commonly apprehend, which is apprehended by Revelation from God and the Faith which Christ Gave to His Apostles, which is the Christian Faith we see in the world to this day.

So the fundamental premise I am challenging you on is that the "PROOF" that you are insisting upon is a worldly proof, and the reality of the Christian Faith's God is not subject to such constrictions, but is instead the creator of those constrictions... Hence, the Christian proof is ad-hominum, and it is not one that you can match, which is martyrdom itself, in the Radiance of Divine Joy...

THIS proof, you see, you cannot match, and you flee from it, and scorn it to justify your flight, while retreating into logical worldly proofs... The Faith of Christ, you see, is SUPRA-LOGICAL, and works all manner of hidden things you cannot know which created and are sustaining the reality that you, in your fallen condition common to all mankind, are able to see. The eyes of the Faith are only secondarily physical, and are primarily noetic... The eyes you insist upon constraining us to are merely optical, you see, and noetic eyes are not so constrained...

So for us, you are wading with the toddlers in the shallow end of the constricted pool, while the ocean cannot be seen, whose very existence toddlers deny until they are entered into it at death...

I did not find Wittgenstein helpful at all, btw...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Make the argument or just shut up!

Arguments are all worldly, and because you will die, will die with you...

Arguments simply affirm the world in which you will die...

The world in which we find ourselves is saturated with death...

Reliance on this world, as you demand, can only yield death...

It is inherently NIHILISTIC...

It terminates in the termination of death...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Here is a little story out of Egypt:

In Egypt, in whose ancient Christian past there had once been many grand monasteries, there once lived a monk who befriended an uneducated and simple peasant farmer. One day this peasant said to the monk, “I too respect God who created this world! Every evening I pour out a bowl of goat’s milk and leave it out under a palm tree. In the evening God comes and drinks up my milk! He is very fond of it! There’s never once been a time when even a drop of milk is left in the bowl.” Hearing these words, the monk could not help smiling. He kindly and logically explained to his friend that God doesn’t need a bowl of goat’s milk. But the peasant so stubbornly insisted that he was right that the monk then suggested that the next night they secretly watch to see what happened after the bowl of milk was left under the palm tree. No sooner said than done. When night fell, the monk and the peasant hid themselves some distance from the tree, and soon in the moonlight they saw how a little fox crept up to the bowl and lapped up all the milk till the bowl was empty. “Indeed!” the peasant sighed disappointedly. “Now I can see that it wasn’t God!” The monk tried to comfort the peasant and explained that God is a spirit, that God is something completely beyond our poor ability to comprehend in our world, and that people comprehend His presence each in their own unique way. But the peasant merely stood hanging his head sadly. Then he wept and went back home to his hovel. The monk also went back to his cell, but when he got there he was amazed to see an angel blocking his path. Utterly terrified, the monk fell to his knees, but the angel said to him: “That simple fellow had neither education nor wisdom nor book-learning enough to be able to comprehend God otherwise. Then you with your wisdom and book learning took away what little he had! You will say that doubtless you reasoned correctly. But there’s one thing that you don’t know, oh learned man: God, seeing the sincerity and true heart of this good peasant, every night sent the little fox to that palm tree to comfort him and accept his sacrifice.”

Perhaps you can see a little more clearly now...

Arsenios