Rightglory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2017, 05:12 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 07:27 PM)ethos Wrote:  Precisely what people learned under communism around here - everything good had its utilitarian reason. I am not aware of denominations in the Church (that is, in Orthodox Christianity of course... ) I am aware, though, that the secular countries around here liked to form "authocephalous" churches, scared perhaps by the true, cross-border "equality, liberty and brotherhood" that our faith gives. So if we (e.g.the Bulgarian Orthodox Church) were autocephalous due to a political reason, adding a country tag to our completely identical with e.g. your country's official faith, I wonder... How did you decide that it was due to the clergy ... and not due to the actual rulers, who were in charge of the country? And of course, every self-respectable ruler would want world domination.


"Denominations" (Heresies) formed thanks to Karl the Great, the Frankish King, who, due to his appetites for the title of "Roman Emperor" (Rome was sacked quite a long time before he was born...) and thanks to the fears and complicity of the Roman pope Leo lll, became one of the reasons that the Roman Catholics drifted away from orthodoxy. Quite the political reason, indeed!

Then you've had completely logical (political) consequences like the Crusades, Templars, the Inquisition, Infallibility of the Pope (btw you know that the fourth crusade obliterated ... Constantinople ... of course... ), Due to the gradual drift, later on protestants had something to protest over in the first place. And then, they inspired literally everyone to protest and construct his own church, based on his personal reading of the Bible. Thus, the sprouting of sects who are quite comparable, actually perhaps even inferior, to the Flying Spaghetti Monster one. Because the pasta guys actually try to think and be rather ... Frank ... to themselves.

But, of course, I am biased, we march towards progress and trans-human future. Yay, don't we all feel happy.


P.S. It was St. Cyrillus who translated it. I'm happy to discover the verb δοκέω (to believe) with "δόξα" (glory) sharing a root. I don't know Greek, but it is really nice that you know a bit of Ancient Greek!

There actually are Orthodox Christian denominations:
List of Christian denominations by number of members

I used the word "denominations" meaning "Churches", technically, because as pure Orthodox Greeks, we don't use the word "denomination" in Greek, but rather call everyone else a heretic. Similar to what you just did.
(and let us not pretend that the Orthodox Church has been the same since the birth of Jesus, any change would technically count as a "denomination")

How I know it was always the clergy and not the actual rulers of a country that decided about religion? Because the clergy has almost always been on the side of the rulers or used by them. But even if it was the rulers making the decisions and not the clergy (I believe it is always both of them in cooperation) my point still stands. Every change in religion is always for political (or even personal, when you are a king) reasons.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like undergroundp's post
13-10-2017, 05:25 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 07:35 PM)ethos Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 07:10 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Glory or belief.... why do you think it is right?

If I understand your question - it's like asking - Mind over Heart, or the opposite. But why pit them against each other at all? Mind without heart is what our current society is. Despicable, to my standard at least. I imagine you don't like it either?

No, I wasn't asking "Mind over Heart". I was asking why you think your beliefs about a god are correct.

I do not agree at all that our current society is "Mind without heart"; if anything I think there is far too little "Mind" used in most situations. I also would not equate "heart", which is important, with religious belief, which I consider to be a kind of pernicious virus.

Quote:To answer your question - saying "belief" is so cold, it gives me shivers. Right belief does sound nazi. An Orthodox Christian would regard the aesthetic argument on par with the rest, maybe only his wish to preserve what he has inherited might be paramount to that, wishing not to damage it with his ego. But we get into aesthetics now, and that is another unprovable territory I guess. Actually, even in the field of aesthetics you could find a compass, if you are honest enough with yourself.

I have no clue what you are trying to say or how that relates in any way to what I asked. Frankly, it just sounds like vague woo claims a la Deepak Chopra.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
13-10-2017, 05:50 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2017 06:18 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 09:07 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Well, we are animals.
We're perambulating digestive systems with smart phones.

Big Grin

Yes, there is a difference. I draw a distinction between the limbic system responses and the cognitive system responses. The latter includes a rationalisation/representation of the 'feeling'.

There is a lust (or disgust) 'alert' which is completely involuntary. And that can trigger an auto-response: fight, flight, freeze or fuck (other words beginning with 'f').

Love is a category-term that can include a bunch of stuff: attachment, affection, affinity (other words beginning with 'a').

Reductionism/determinsim is only one atheistic option. Another is emergentism, which is rather more complicated than you have indicated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 06:01 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 08:36 PM)ethos Wrote:  Btw, you know that the Hollywood industry is establishing in our superegos just that - an impossibly high standard of life, making every one of us expect his life ought be one of a promoted to a demi-god superhero. Thus, setting us on course to essentially chase the rainbow.

I am a Thoreauvian myself, which means I have tried to simplify my life and pursue knowledge in my spare time.

Personally, I am not terribly attracted to superheroes since they remind me of professional wrestlers. I see superhero movies more as a symptom than a cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 06:17 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 05:50 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 09:07 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Well, we are animals.
We're perambulating digestive systems with smart phones.

Big Grin

Yes, there is a difference. I draw a distinction between the limbic system responses and the cognitive system responses. The latter includes a rationalisation/representation of the 'feeling'.

There is a lust (or disgust) 'alert' which is completely involuntary. And that can trigger an auto-response: fight, flight, freeze or fuck (other words beginning with 'f').

Love is a category-term that can include a bunch of stuff: attachment, affection, affinity (other words beginning with 'a').

Reductionism/determinsim is only one atheistic option. Another is emergentism, which is rather more complicated than you have indicated.

You don't think the emergent smart phone has complexity?

Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 11:20 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2017 01:53 PM by ethos.)
RE: Rightglory?
(12-10-2017 09:07 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Well, we are animals.
We're perambulating digestive systems with smart phones.

Big Grin

Yes, there is a difference. I draw a distinction between the limbic system responses and the cognitive system responses. The latter includes a rationalisation/representation of the 'feeling'.

There is a lust (or disgust) 'alert' which is completely involuntary. And that can trigger an auto-response: fight, flight, freeze or fuck (other words beginning with 'f').

Love is a category-term that can include a bunch of stuff: attachment, affection, affinity (other words beginning with 'a').

To quote one of TTA's greatest philosophers:

[Image: 167o6cj.jpg]

Hey, I should be less witty, but essentially you are saying we all fuck around with each other, as currently to my knowledge we neither fight, nor flee. Well, my computer freezes occasionally, but in some years his (/hers, lets not discriminate) subconscious limbic system will be developed enough to fight me, fuck me and then flee? And will it develop trough ... evolution* maybe? Yup, what a simple freeze of my operating system can evolve to... So, lads and lasses, update your antivirus software and absolutely prevent your computers from freezing, or you would eventually drive prof. Hawking and Elon Musk crazy from the fears they have. That is of course - if they fear a computer doing those things to them.., and not only feared an alien invasion or a computer AI apocalypse . Or alien computer AI invasion apocalypse. Anyhow.
*(nano mechanics, I know, but that would make it a process constructed by us... Although machines are also constructed by us... )


Off with the acidity, sorry about that. But I just get mainly that from our whole current culture...
I am sorry that your notion of love became such... You agree that our notions are formed on the basis of our experiences, right? So you say, besides about love, that the experiences you've had up to now formed inside you the notion that we are not more than lifeless machines thrown away in a corner of the universe by chance evolution of some stones? You also dug out some facts that you've interpreted as proof to a certain thought. These facts now serve as anchors to that belief that we are lifeless machines. It makes me feel bad with myself, because I am not a better person than you (even if I don't know you) but yet I've had apparently better experiences that formed inside me a different notion of what we are. And it is not even necessary for my faith to refute these claims about the stones - who knows, they may turn out to be facts. However, I wholeheartedly abhor the spirit that comes trough these words arranged and chosen in a similar, reactionary atheistic way. A spirit of deep resentment, sarcastic towards truth and life, completely opposite to love and the notion that people before us had about love. (The spirit coming from all similar statements, not necessarily yours or the hypothetical mine). I refuse to accept what you were lead to accept, what you like to imply with these facts, but facts as long as they were obtained trough sincere research, are perfectly fine.



(12-10-2017 11:04 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 07:35 PM)ethos Wrote:  If I understand your question - it's like asking - Mind over Heart, or the opposite. But why pit them against each other at all? Mind without heart is what our current society is. Despicable, to my standard at least. I imagine you don't like it either?

If religion is heart in this then I would say that current (polish) society is chock-full of it and it indeed is despicable with it's religious taboos that make women second class citizens unable to choose abortion when they need it, or with denying same sex couples right to marriage, or by opposing right to good death.

Nothing of value would be lost by cutting heart - religion - out and replacing it with more reason. Maybe then people would realize that their tribal superstitions shouldn't be applied to others.

Szuchow, Hi ! First of all, I permit myself to talk freely, but I most certainly will mislead you, unintentionally. You better form notions about me or my faith by yourself. If you have any wish that is. But for the time being:
When I said "Heart" I didn't mean religion. You know - we consider it a byproduct, a symbol of something much more important. We consider our icons, our hymnographic tradition, our churches, the texts and the material traces of the many saints we have, even we consider the Bible itself - a byproduct of something much more important. You see, the New Testament and its Gospels were compiled by some of the Apostles and St. Clement of Rome around 97 AD and it was something very "underground" at that time. And the Old Testament was compiled by people - ordinary ones, prophets and kings. What unites them is what inspired them, and that is the Holy Spirit. Something which is beyond understanding just with our minds, our senses or our emotions, and thus necessitating a readiness to think outside them, to think outside what a mere notion implies trough our previous experiences. This readiness is a symptom of having faith, thus - a symptom of the possibility to see differently and not just stay in our comfort zone. This is very difficult to achieve, it is much easier to use your mind and kill away the signs that you might just be something more.

Saying all this makes me see and feel sympathy to the mistake - to try to seek God using subordinate matter, seeking Him in entirety ... in things that our small eyeballs can encompass. You know, God is beyond (relative) notions like big or small, far away or close by, hard or soft... He is even beyond good and evil! , yes - that is exactly what the symbol of "hell" means to those, who abused their freedom enough to completely kill their soul away, to become "Living dead" already in this life, to indeed become machines trough their own free will, to go away from God. To them He appears evil (or if they managed to stifle their feeling of God... when matter comes to an end, as it had a beginning - then ). But if you didn't have such a possibility to actually freely chose death than life.., what freedom would that be, to live eternally in the land of the pink unicorns without you having any choice. So, Yes, if you say that God is Beyond Good and Evil, you actually enforce the existence of hell... Because "beyond" means surpassing dichotomies, but not destroying the possibility of them.
And if you say that humans are beyond good and evil, you essentially say we are gods . Humans aren't beyond dichotomies, perhaps it is better to say that the possibilities within which we enact our choices are beyond dichotomies. But the act of choice already determines where are we on a dichotomy, at least according to our personal inner measure if not to the Absolute. And empirically the notion of us being gods of course is wrong as well, we didn't even decide the shape of our nose when we were born, what god is that...
But something has to be beyond Good and Evil, no? Or... then they would ... exist?


About what you've said for society - when I said we miss "Heart" I meant maybe love. And what do I mean of love -
"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. "

We miss love for each other, we forgot the meaning of that word and we think it means lust. Or, actually - we have fought bitterly the meaning of that word, striving to forget it, because we are ... lazy. We don't like to fight trough the high standard it sets, we prefer to die away in our anesthetic culture, our culture whose sole purpose is to forget.

(12-10-2017 11:28 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  My question to any kind of Christian is always the same. It's a genuine question out of curiosity, and isn't supposed to be confrontational.

Why do you want to endorse the Bible/Christianity from a moral perspective? To me, it makes no difference whether there is any truth to the religion, just like it would make no difference if a book about some fascist dictator was about a real or imaginary person. I wouldn't glorify them, either way. I can discuss the book's truth however, and even take away any good ideas it may happen to contain, without having to pledge my allegiance.

It's the "all or nothing" approach about religion I find strange. I won't take offense if you aren't interested in addressing any of this though Smile

You find that approach in Protestants unfortunately, and I guess you have been exposed to a lot of them where you come from? But I understand them, they only had the Bible and not any living tradition, they didn't connect with the Church, they just reacted to the heresy of the Catholics. So I assume your notion of "christian" ... is based on heretics, judging from what you assume about me.

I don't want to endorse anything, I don't want to force anything. I just was lucky, I had the chance to discover something that is beyond expression with words, it would be funny to try expressing it with them. I feel happy though that I had this luck, and when people around me are not feeling that and instead are willingly killing every idea of "good" inside of them I feel bad about them, but I respect their free will to do so as it wasn't me who gave it to them in the first place. My idea about Protestants is that they think when they make you join a church, they would immediately save you (the "Sola Fide" heresy they accepted) . Thus, the endorsement of morals - having such an idea that "we are already saved" would make you wonder, actually what is necessary "to be alive from the inside" , to have "the Kingdom of God ... in your Hearts" ... And you would easily assume just dragging someone into your church and baptizing him with an invalid sacrament would save him. You would see if you read above, that (Orthodox) Christians don't even think of the Bible as absolute, let alone endorse it on someone forcefully.

When you fall in love, it wasn't because you endorsed anything on anyone, it just happened, and not only because of your own efforts, there was somebody else too... And after that you don't start to forcefully make other people around you fall in love ... You are just happy, you try to do your best and also feel a bit sad when others around you didn't have that...

You say it won't make any difference to you if among everything encountered, there was an absolute truth. You also imply that you are interested solely in the knowledge you can obtain from a book and be able to judge it as being positive or negative. Thus, you mean becoming completely subordinate to your mind and the experiences you've had that formed your notions your mind uses?
I don't believe that.
If you fall in love - would you just be interested in the process, or rather - the person you fell in love with?


(13-10-2017 01:34 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 07:27 PM)ethos Wrote:  "Denominations" (Heresies) formed thanks to Karl the Great, the Frankish King, who, due to his appetites for the title of "Roman Emperor" (Rome was sacked quite a long time before he was born...) and thanks to the fears and complicity of the Roman pope Leo lll, became one of the reasons that the Roman Catholics drifted away from orthodoxy. Quite the political reason, indeed!

Do you have sources for the claim that Karl wanted the title of "roman emperor" specifically? He certainly was looking for a title fitting his position and de facto power and (as your wiki article confirms) certainly talked to the pope about that too.
It is heavily contested however if the actual coronation was planned as it happened. The pope crowning the emperor would/had put the pope above the emperor which certainly was not in Kalrs interest. This lasting conflict between German emperors and popes finally escalated in the events which lead to Heinrich IV going to Canossa in 1076/1077. Ultimately the pope lost (was exiled later by Heinrich) but papacy won (bishops were appointed by the pope and not the emperor anymore).

I also fail to see how multiple denominations (heresies from the orthodox church) formed thanks to Karl. Sure catholicism (and much later protestantism) was strenghened and fortified in the frankish (later french and german) empire due to the close ties of the german emperors to the popes, but were there other heresies? Or do you mean those two?

I am interested because where i am from we call him Karl too, and not "Charles". French are so gay. Tongue


Deesee23, help me on that. I didn't have time to dig too much into history, but I would be glad to know where to look. I will look up Heinrich IV later if I have time.

I don't have a source that I remember at least, I guess that is what I assume, based:
- on the prestige the Romans and the title Roman Emperor had on the Franks before the Western Part of the Empire fell. For the people of that time, the Roman Empire wasn't just a historical entity like "Roman empire", "Habsburg Empire" or "Russian Empire". That was THE empire that assumed it bettered the previous Greek civilization on which it stepped (based on their comparable mythology, religion, political and military system. Ex., calling Zeus - Jupiter, Aphrodite - Venus, etc.) . And you can only imagine the prestige it held over the tribes that historically the emperors used as mercenaries for keeping enemies at bay - the Franks. Thus, when Rome fell, you could either accept that the rest of the empire indeed was in Constantinople, thus giving it all the prestige... or you could try to usurp that prestige for yourself, what happened three centuries later with Karl (who doubtlessly was a great warrior) .
- Basically, Karl wanted (and succeeded) in uniting Western Europe (unite or conquer, use the term you like) . So, if he wanted to unite not only a part, but the whole of Europe - that meant involving the Byzantine Empire, in his plans. And for that matter he needed leverage, not to appear to them as another Frankish king who helped the (Roman/Byzantine) Empire, but rather as equal to it.

Don't you think precisely this ambiguity is speaking for itself - he didn't want to lean down his head to a pope, especially his protégé Leo lll that was... hated by the people of Rome at the time (they literally tried to pluck out his eyes) ... But then again apart from ... the Roman Empire (now based in Constantinople), there was no other authority that could declare him emperor with any legitimacy, especially when you had a live Empress Irina ruling in Constantinople... But he can't simply go to the main square of Rome and put himself his crown... So he devised with his protégé the dramatic story of him not knowing that he would be crowned emperor, accidentally entering the church and the pope putting the crown on his head incidentally... (Although the jeweled crown was sitting in the middle of the church, but perhaps Karl thought that it wasn't for him but for somebody else...) .
Then having been crowned emperor, he sent envoys, trying to marry Empress Irene... Thinking that she, perhaps as a woman, would be easy to convince to marry him. Lol the sexism! . Though, these are all well known things I guess. I mean - come on! Of course he wanted to be called Roman Emperor!

How the Catholic heresy sprouted thanks to him?
It had only its seeds at the time (when the whole of the empire was orthodox) . But as we spoke with undergroundp - every secular political entity in power seeks to differentiate the religion its subjects profess from its competing political entities, effectively using it as a tool to secure its independence. (thanks btw undergroundp for the fruitful discussion!). In some cases this strife is milder as e.g. in our case - the Bulgarian state made our church seek autocephaly (its like independance) , create the cyrillic alphabet and translate belief to glory from Ancient Greek, this being an etymologically defendable feat, somewhat.
In Karl's case, a person very far from orthodoxy and perhaps illiterate in christianity (maybe I'm wrong), the church in Leo lll's face was complacent to his support for the filioque.

So, when the church isn't strong enough, it can easily yield to the state, thanks to the means it provides, and fall into heresy, that is: impart from, damage the tradition that has been given to us and make it useless, utterly useless... Thats what happened with the Frankish kingdom sadly, that is what happened to Western Europe and its turn away from christianity.
And this heresy opened the doors for the following geometric progression of heresies.



(13-10-2017 05:12 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 07:27 PM)ethos Wrote:  Precisely what people learned under communism around here - everything good had its utilitarian reason. I am not aware of denominations in the Church (that is, in Orthodox Christianity of course... ) I am aware, though, that the secular countries around here liked to form "authocephalous" churches, scared perhaps by the true, cross-border "equality, liberty and brotherhood" that our faith gives. So if we (e.g.the Bulgarian Orthodox Church) were autocephalous due to a political reason, adding a country tag to our completely identical with e.g. your country's official faith, I wonder... How did you decide that it was due to the clergy ... and not due to the actual rulers, who were in charge of the country? And of course, every self-respectable ruler would want world domination.


"Denominations" (Heresies) formed thanks to Karl the Great, the Frankish King, who, due to his appetites for the title of "Roman Emperor" (Rome was sacked quite a long time before he was born...) and thanks to the fears and complicity of the Roman pope Leo lll, became one of the reasons that the Roman Catholics drifted away from orthodoxy. Quite the political reason, indeed!

Then you've had completely logical (political) consequences like the Crusades, Templars, the Inquisition, Infallibility of the Pope (btw you know that the fourth crusade obliterated ... Constantinople ... of course... ), Due to the gradual drift, later on protestants had something to protest over in the first place. And then, they inspired literally everyone to protest and construct his own church, based on his personal reading of the Bible. Thus, the sprouting of sects who are quite comparable, actually perhaps even inferior, to the Flying Spaghetti Monster one. Because the pasta guys actually try to think and be rather ... Frank ... to themselves.

But, of course, I am biased, we march towards progress and trans-human future. Yay, don't we all feel happy.


P.S. It was St. Cyrillus who translated it. I'm happy to discover the verb δοκέω (to believe) with "δόξα" (glory) sharing a root. I don't know Greek, but it is really nice that you know a bit of Ancient Greek!

There actually are Orthodox Christian denominations:
List of Christian denominations by number of members

I used the word "denominations" meaning "Churches", technically, because as pure Orthodox Greeks, we don't use the word "denomination" in Greek, but rather call everyone else a heretic. Similar to what you just did.
(and let us not pretend that the Orthodox Church has been the same since the birth of Jesus, any change would technically count as a "denomination")

How I know it was always the clergy and not the actual rulers of a country that decided about religion? Because the clergy has almost always been on the side of the rulers or used by them. But even if it was the rulers making the decisions and not the clergy (I believe it is always both of them in cooperation) my point still stands. Every change in religion is always for political (or even personal, when you are a king) reasons.

There is something that I need to mention, it was due to the way the wikipedia article was made and it only shows how hard it is to weed trough the centuries-old obscurities... Don't look for "Eastern Catholic Orthodox" (first time I hear about these fellas), scroll aaaall the way down to "Eastern Orthodox" . Its just that, you get the tag of the country and the faith. Its completely the same rite, the same name - Orthodox, nothing more. If you visit your own churches, and go after e.g. in Bulgaria you will know we have completely the same rite, even the same music.

You would always beat me up in your own language, I don't even know Greek! But the term "denomination" comes from Latin I guess, and we use it to call "heretics" in a milder and less offensive way. Thats actually not good I guess. But maybe we are having different notions, yours meaning every imparting from the name, and mine - every imparting from the rite and tradition.
Actually, we did have an orthodox denomination - with the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in the turn of 19th century in our countries that used the Julian, there were some small groups of monks who refused to reform the calendar, and still do their feasts on different days of the year than the mainstream (Rightglory) Christians. But otherwise they share everything with us, but you could consider them a "denomination" maybe?

If you think the clergy was always on the side of the rulers, then check what happened with St. Marc from Ephesus in Florence-Ferarra, when franks almost won with their heresy. Albeit he was the sole proponent of the orthodoxy among his fellow byzantines who defected and the pope, St. Marc essentially became our (and the whole of the Church) hero by defending orthodoxy from them.

Check my previous reply, I fully comply that the political, secular reasons are what is the driving force behind legitimizing heresies that have drifted away from (Rightglory) Christianity. In fact, do you agree with that statement: every secular political entity in power seeks to differentiate the religion its subjects profess from its competing political entities, effectively using it as a tool to secure its independence. ? No trick question, just curious!
Sometimes the clergy is complacent, sometimes it isn't. In Bulgaria after we fell to the Ottomans, we had only clergy and not a state. Then we have lost our autocephaly to the Greek Patriarchy. It was a good thing though for the time for our faith, as living underground preserved our faith virtually untouched for 5 centuries. But we've lost our "Old Bulgarian" language and countless books, well because understandably the Greek Patriarchy tried to remove our identity. Not very benign, and unfortunately this does imply that the orthodox clergy was following its own interests in this world too. Anyhow, this cultural assimilation is something I do not consider as fatal, but only because we essentially both sharing the same faith. But this has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, it has to do with the weakness all people have in common, succumbing easily to the laws of this world.




(13-10-2017 05:25 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 07:35 PM)ethos Wrote:  If I understand your question - it's like asking - Mind over Heart, or the opposite. But why pit them against each other at all? Mind without heart is what our current society is. Despicable, to my standard at least. I imagine you don't like it either?

No, I wasn't asking "Mind over Heart". I was asking why you think your beliefs about a god are correct.

I do not agree at all that our current society is "Mind without heart"; if anything I think there is far too little "Mind" used in most situations. I also would not equate "heart", which is important, with religious belief, which I consider to be a kind of pernicious virus.

Quote:To answer your question - saying "belief" is so cold, it gives me shivers. Right belief does sound nazi. An Orthodox Christian would regard the aesthetic argument on par with the rest, maybe only his wish to preserve what he has inherited might be paramount to that, wishing not to damage it with his ego. But we get into aesthetics now, and that is another unprovable territory I guess. Actually, even in the field of aesthetics you could find a compass, if you are honest enough with yourself.

I have no clue what you are trying to say or how that relates in any way to what I asked. Frankly, it just sounds like vague woo claims a la Deepak Chopra.

Unfogged, its really refreshing to see someone entertaining so well his notion of "mind alone". And actually getting straight to the gist of the matter.

About writing what seemed to you as unrelated - Firstly, I got tired yesterday... I also hope though we both have some margin for approaching our views, in order to understand each other at all. In other words, "bear with me, please"! As I say, I am far from being able to explain anything well, I attempt to do it here on my own and not cite the Saints (who said it a million times better than me) only to shortcut the complaint you may have, that I, as a believing (orthodox) Christian, don't think for myself.
Having faith doesn't mean one is mindless, it means living your life accepting you have limits.., that you weren't the reason for the matter before you to exist.., to explore what happens when you do not close to yourself the possibility of things that would be more than just matter.

I personally wonder how may someone think matter is the only thing that exists, when you have principles like the quantum uncertainty, concepts like dark matter, the theory of Relativity (and its implication of the immanence of Light to our reality, literally being the measure of everything) . But my experience shows me that precisely the same facts are used for the opposite claims about matter, proving that it is not facts themselves but actually their interpretation, the belief what governs our choices. Thus:

1. Why do I think I am correct - I don't think that. I believe that. The first implies a definite state of affairs, the second - a continuous. We, as humans, do live in time and in space, we aren't a definite, single event; or at least, our senses present reality as a continuous event unfolding in time. "To understand" literally means to stand under it, to encompass it. And thats how our mind "understands" - it dissects a concept into its parts, tries to see the relationship between each part and reality and between the parts themselves, puts one by one the whole thing together and then compares the relationship of the whole finite claim to the unfolding reality. Note that our mind can analyze only a finite moment it experienced trough its senses and then compare it to the continuously unfolding reality . After the "check up", our minds decide whether their claim was relevant or not, thus, whether they could believe that or not.

Ex. with speech. "Marry has a little lamb", thinks a shepherd in the field, seeing the ewe called Mary giving birth to a lamb.
Before thinking that, he grasps the whole picture of a sheep giving birth, not discriminating only the ewe's leg or the tree on the left, but the whole thing together - the wind that blows, the sounds made by the grass, the emotion of slight amazement and curiosity he feels at that moment, etc. , the whole picture. After he experiences that scene, his mind forms a sentence - first reducing the experience to its parts, labeling them with notions he is familiar with trough his previous experiences, using words - e.g. the name of the ewe - "Marry", and the ewe he sees at the time - Marry. Check. The notion of a "lamb" he has and the object he sees coming out of her womb (only a leg though) - not check! , continuing with comparing what he sees to his expectation - even if he didn't see the entire lamb, he knows it is highly improbable that the ewe spawned a zerg Overlord (starcraft lingo) . An auditory stimulus that his experience relates to "a lamb" reassures him its a lamb coming out of the ewe and not an Overlord, so - "lamb" ? lamb, check. After his mind has dissected the experience and made it in to bits and pieces, relating them to reality, he establishes grammatical relationships between these notions and forms a sentence. It is not "Lamb has a little Mary", nor " little has a lamb Mary", but "Mary has (given birth to) a little lamb". Then, after that he relates this to what he continued to see - the leg of the sheep coming out of his mother's womb, Mary (seemingly) in pain, the sounds, emotions, feelings, smells, expectations... and compares that to the relations he just formed in his mind. Thus, a final "check" whether the two realities - the one formed in his mind and the reality that his senses testified to - corresponded. As they did - his, or our, mind moves on, grants this relationship "belief" and stops questioning it.

Thats how we are using speech, words and what we are using them for, guiding trough our experiences reality gives us.
Actually, the reason we have Reason is precisely that - because we are able to dissect reality trough words - label parts of reality , juggle the labels, form questions, compare them with what we observe.
(Translating literally the first few words of the Gospel of Johan from Bulgarian - In Beginning there was the Speech/Word ... ( Mind you, not "in the beginning" but "In Beginning" ... St. John Chrysostomos has a terrific explanation about why was that translated so and what that implied).
Don't you find this relation - Beginning - Word, regardless from where it is, to be corresponding to the importance of "words" in the thinking process and the place they occupy in the aforementioned process?
.

So, why did I need the example with, dealing with the mind working with still moments in time, and reality unfolding continuously in time and space, and what is it related with thinking and believing?
As the current facts show that the universe is infinite, we, finite beings trying to understand the infinite universe using that method - (tearing apart a finite moment in time and space into smaller parts, processing it and comparing them to the continuous reality once more) ... is very proud. In other words, for us to understand existence, we would need ... an infinitely large mind that would dissect infinity to... its infinite parts, establish all these infinite number of relationships, and then again compare them to the continuously infinite unfolding of the infinite universe. Or in other words, we would need God.

Science got very proud assuming it knows everything just because it is able to observe how tiny parts of it function. Don't you agree? Because, you see, my standard of infinity is ... like infinite number of universes for each of our choices we have ever made and will make in our lives. Meaning, an (infinite) universe for that comma that I have forgotten to delete, another (infinite) universe where that comma got deleted. An universe where I have not moved my left foot at 4:15 pm., an universe where I have not chosen to blink twice in a row two years ago on Christmas. Etcetera and at least . That is not even large enough scale to understand what is infinity, to understand God. In other words, we are in a loophole - trying to understand the infinite reality with our finite minds, in a finite moment.

Now, why do I address e.g. infinity with the label God and thus giving it personality? Not because I force my personal view over the impersonal universe, but precisely because... I don't want to escape from me being a persona. Rather, I accept what "the universe" forced on me - being born a person. And as I said somewhere before - we all would agree that God is beyond dichotomies, beyond Impersonal and Personal. But the fact that we have a personality is an empiric fact, not a choice we do... Thus, we could use it to understand God.

This is the reasoning I have (been given) trough choosing not to revoke my conscience, but instead discover where it will lead me to. As you see, the Orthodox Faith is a process that unfolds, and not an one time event that happens, like asking me "why you think" , and me telling you, and 'basta', we move on... . I do think, I respect thinking, but I chose to believe precisely for those reasons.

2. Society - I assume this about our society, I may imagine what do you think when you say Mind. I do care though about saving myself, unfortunately or not, you can't help anyone if he doesn't like to help himself, thus putting one's faith in politics, money, food, sex and lust... thats just wasteful if you are still alive from the inside, that is. Och, seems to you like the Coelho stuff again , sorry.


Daang, everyone! What have you made me do, guyz! That has been awsome, but I haven't slept and I have work tomorrow... I am glad to discuss, I discovered so many things...

Anyhow, greets and sorry for the novel. Drinking Beverage Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 11:31 AM
RE: Rightglory?
Wrong glory hole
Right glory hole

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 11:38 AM
RE: Rightglory?
Thanks for your reply ethos, but I'm afraid I couldn't understand what you were saying at all.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2017, 11:48 AM
RE: Rightglory?
Wall of text is wall of text. And some of it was just woo. I don't pay attention to woo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
13-10-2017, 11:49 AM
RE: Rightglory?
(13-10-2017 11:20 AM)ethos Wrote:  Unfogged, its really refreshing to see someone entertaining so well his notion of "mind alone". And actually getting straight to the gist of the matter.

Nowhere did I say that "mind alone" was the goal.

Quote:About writing what seemed to you as unrelated - Firstly, I got tired yesterday... I also hope though we both have some margin for approaching our views, in order to understand each other at all. In other words, "bear with me, please"! As I say, I am far from being able to explain anything well, I attempt to do it here on my own and not cite the Saints (who said it a million times better than me) only to shortcut the complaint you may have, that I, as a believing (orthodox) Christian, don't think for myself.

Nowhere did I say that I think you do not think for yourself. Please stop responding to what you think I'm thinking and respond to the actual questions.

Quote:Having faith doesn't mean one is mindless, it means living your life accepting you have limits, that you weren't the reason for matter before you to exist, implies to admit to one's self at least not closing himself to the possibility that there might be more than just matter.
...

Again, nothing to do with what I asked. This is just a huge non-sequitur.

Quote:1. Why do I think I am correct - I don't think that. I believe that. The first implies a definite state of affairs, the second - a continuous. We, as humans, do live in time and in space, we aren't a definite, single event; or at least, our senses present reality as a continuous event unfolding in time. "To understand" literally means to stand under it, to encompass it. And thats how our mind "understands" - it dissects a concept into its parts, tries to see the relationship between each part and reality and between the parts themselves, puts one by one the whole thing together and then compares the relationship of the whole finite claim to the unfolding reality. Note that our mind can analyze only a finite moment it experienced trough its senses and then compare it to the continuously unfolding reality . After the "check up", our minds decide whether their claim was relevant or not, thus, whether they could believe that or not.[
...
/quote]

You use a lot of words but say very little. Your distinction between think and believe is meaningless to me and the rest explains exactly nothing.

[quote]Science got very proud assuming it knows everything just because it is able to observe how tiny parts of it function. Don't you agree?

No, I do not. Science does not assume it knows everything. If anything, science assumes it knows only a partial amount about a tiny fraction of reality and even that may be wrong. It's the theists who often claim to have the ultimate answers.

Quote:Now, why do I address e.g. infinity with the label God and thus giving it personality? Not because I force my personal view over the impersonal universe, but precisely because... I don't want to escape from me being a persona. Rather, I accept what "the universe" forced on me - being born a person. And as I said somewhere before - we all would agree that God is beyond dichotomies, beyond Impersonal and Personal. But the fact that we have a personality is an empiric fact, not a choice we do... Thus, we could use it to understand God.

The fact that we have personas is irrelevant to whether or not a god exists and what attributes it may have if it does.

With all that you never even came close to what I asked or what I am curious about. There does not seem to be any possibility of communication here.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: