|
steinrokkan posted:Well, Kyrie is dick. Maritain, whom I mentioned earlier, wrote about sense of ecstasy derived from reading Plotinas and Plato, implying that religious epiphany isn't reserved to a clique of doctrinally righteous jerks, but rather that religious experience compatible (and leading to) with Christian ideals is available universally and comes naturally to anybody who is allowed to live a happy, independent life, physically and spiritually. So Christianity has a monopoly on having a happy independent life both physically and spiritually? Do I have to pay a toll for not being Christian and having those things? steinrokkan posted:He says that there will be hell for non-believers (not sure if he subscribes to hell as literal fiery pits), but if you choose to be non-believer, well good for you, and good luck. Man, its almost as if you are pissed we are Debating and Discussing religion in D&D in a thread where a guy who is actively censoring people who dispute his points and refute his conversion attempts. And we're the jerks.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:You haven't even read this thread, have you? There seems to be weird double think. On the one side, there seems to be belief that Kyrie wants us to stay atheists because it validates his faith, but apparently he at the same time burns with desire to convert us?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, Kyrie is dick. Maritain, whom I mentioned earlier, wrote about sense of ecstasy derived from reading Plotinas and Plato, implying that religious epiphany isn't reserved to a clique of doctrinally righteous jerks, but rather that religious experience compatible (and leading to) with Christian ideals is available universally and comes naturally to anybody who is allowed to live a happy, independent life, physically and spiritually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
I think you guys need to stop loving stampeding Cavaradossi and consider the possibility that he's answering as best he can in the structure of the way he thinks, and maybe he his way of thinking doesn't offer him easy (or satisfactory/any) answers to some of your questions? Instead of taking that as evasiveness, you could even take that as a disproof of his system of thought in itself. Instead of just getting mad for no reason. I do not intend this as a defence of Kyrie, though, who is 50% troll 50% protofascist.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think you guys need to stop loving stampeding Cavaradossi and consider the possibility that he's answering as best he can in the structure of the way he thinks, and maybe he his way of thinking doesn't offer him easy (or satisfactory/any) answers to some of your questions? Instead of taking that as evasiveness, you could even take that as a disproof of his system of thought in itself. True, and that is what I'm taking away from his posts is that is says a lot that he is both unable to answer the questions posed and its rather expected. I'm certainly not mad, just puzzled, but then again what was I expecting to hear from him. But yeah, screw Kyrie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So Christianity has a monopoly on having a happy independent life both physically and spiritually? That's literally the opposite of what I posted. Plotinas and Plato weren't Christians, but they came to conclusions that are equivalent with Christian epiphany, and still inspire awe in Christians today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There seems to be weird double think. On the one side, there seems to be belief that Kyrie wants us to stay atheists because it validates his faith, but apparently he at the same time burns with desire to convert us? Now, see, that first part? That's something nobody has said in the thread. Kyrie doesn't want people to stay atheist but he will rejoice at their suffering in hell. He has also said that each and every one of us will recant and believe in God before we die. Seriously, just quick the little '?' below his avatar and it's there plain as day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's literally the opposite of what I posted. Plotinas and Plato weren't Christians, but they came to conclusions that are equivalent with Christian epiphany, and still inspire awe in Christians today. Fair enough, I did misread that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Maritain, whom I mentioned earlier, wrote about sense of ecstasy derived from reading Plotinas and Plato, implying that religious epiphany isn't reserved to a clique of doctrinally righteous jerks, but rather that religious experience compatible (and leading to) with Christian ideals is available universally and comes naturally to anybody who is allowed to live a happy, independent life, physically and spiritually. Religious ecstasy does not universally lead to Christian ideals though, which is why other religions, you know, exist. "I feel it's true" is fine as a subjective reason to believe if it makes you feel good sure, but since it comes over people of other faiths too, it would seem that it's either (1) not from God at all and is no reliable guide to divine truth or (2) that dogma is a human-created thing, irrelevant to God, who sends His Spirit to anyone who searches for Him without regard to the particulars of their traditions. I'm fine with (2) as an answer, but if I were a Christian I'd also be a universalist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Good job boys, we've progressed from renaissance Catholicism to American Revolution-esque Deism ITT.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well what are "Christian ideals" really? I mean other than the bits about sex I find the Catholic social teaching quite agreeable. But a lot of what's there could be developed from other religious sources; indeed, what makes Islam and Judaism unique in a relative sense is that both of them include pretty detailed blueprints for how to live life 'correctly' on a social level. It's the point, isn't it; "Christian" moral ideas seem to be pretty universal (and it's no wonder that inter-religion dialogue is the bees knees these days), so if you accept the idea of God, he's hardly an evil bastard who destines you to be a bad person based on where you are born. Really the only distinction is where (or if at all) you direct your worship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Good job boys, we've progressed from renaissance Catholicism to American Revolution-esque Deism ITT. Would it be a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Good job boys, we've progressed from renaissance Catholicism to American Revolution-esque Deism ITT. American Revolution Deism is the poo poo, though. "Hey the only tools we can really access to understand creation and the one who created it are our own reason and our perceptions of the universe. So let's stop listening to a bunch of dead bronze age or medieval assholes with chubbies for rape and slavery, take from their holy books what good teachings we can, accept good teachings from other traditions too, and try to be good people."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Would it be a bad thing? It was a little more progressive than even a lot of Modern Day Christian sects.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:39
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's literally the opposite of what I posted. Plotinas and Plato weren't Christians, but they came to conclusions that are equivalent with Christian epiphany, and still inspire awe in Christians today. Augustine unironically thought Roman society would have been much more virtuous if they had worshipped Plato rather than Jupiter et al: '“Plato, who banished poets from the city so that the citizens should not be deceived.” To whom should the city accord divine honours? “To Plato, who prohibited these base and shameful things, or to the demons who, because they took delight in deceiving men, made it impossible to persuade them?” To Augustine he should be “above the gods themselves.”' Although still this would obviously be lovely because it's not Christian.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:(2) that dogma is a human-created thing, irrelevant to God, who sends His Spirit to anyone who searches for Him without regard to the particulars of their traditions. VitalSigns posted:American Revolution Deism is the poo poo, though.  )If you want solid answers out of me then you're out of luck, I don't claim to know that I'm right, it's just what I feel is right. I guess you could call it Faith. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think you guys need to stop loving stampeding Cavaradossi and consider the possibility that he's answering as best he can in the structure of the way he thinks, and maybe he his way of thinking doesn't offer him easy (or satisfactory/any) answers to some of your questions? Instead of taking that as evasiveness, you could even take that as a disproof of his system of thought in itself. I think that's bullshit, Cavaradossi knows he's giving an unsatisfactory answer. He knows there is no reason to start "living the life" of a Catholic that has any advantage over starting to "live the life" of a Muslim or Sikh, waiting for faith to take hold. He's leaving it unsaid because like almost all modern, intellectual Christians, he doesn't have a deep belief in the objective truth and reality of his faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Augustine unironically thought Roman society would have been much more virtuous if they had worshipped Plato rather than Jupiter et al: I figured Augustine would be all for allowing poets and music and rocking orgies until one's sixtieth birthday and the little light on their hand starts blinking, after which time we ban them from fun and make them be virtuous for the good of society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I figured Augustine would be all for allowing poets and music and rocking orgies until one's sixtieth birthday and the little light on their hand starts blinking, after which time we ban them from fun and make them be virtuous for the good of society. drat hippies, roll out the
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:47
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think that's bullshit, Cavaradossi knows he's giving an unsatisfactory answer. He knows there is no reason to start "living the life" of a Catholic that has any advantage over starting to "live the life" of a Muslim or Sikh, waiting for faith to take hold. He's leaving it unsaid because like almost all modern, intellectual Christians, he doesn't have a deep belief in the objective truth and reality of his faith. That's because he doesn't value his own perception of objective truth. His faith is a way of suspending that need. I think stupidly, but I think that's what it is. I don't think he can answer the questions asked of him (except about slavery where he has dragged his feet), and if he does, I don't think his way of thinking will provide a satisfactory answer. He can't logically show that god exists or that his denomination is right because he doesn't believe in God or the Church because of anything really to do with formal logic. At least, that's what I think. The alternative is that he's going through the motions of his faith, which I guess is possible too.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That's because he doesn't value his own perception of objective truth. His faith is a way of suspending that need. I think stupidly, but I think that's what it is. I don't think he can answer the questions asked of him (except about slavery where he has dragged his feet), and if he does, I don't think his way of thinking will provide a satisfactory answer. He can't logically show that god exists or that his denomination is right because he doesn't believe in God or the Church because of anything really to do with formal logic. What does your heart tell you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Augustine unironically thought Roman society would have been much more virtuous if they had worshipped Plato rather than Jupiter et al:
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What does your heart tell you? To
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think that's bullshit, Cavaradossi knows he's giving an unsatisfactory answer. He knows there is no reason to start "living the life" of a Catholic that has any advantage over starting to "live the life" of a Muslim or Sikh, waiting for faith to take hold. He's leaving it unsaid because like almost all modern, intellectual Christians, he doesn't have a deep belief in the objective truth and reality of his faith. Why are you so concerned about what makes him happy, and that he's made one choice if the other choices are supposedly equivalent. Is it because his choice doesn't fit a particular political conviction?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think you guys need to stop loving stampeding Cavaradossi and consider the possibility that he's answering as best he can in the structure of the way he thinks, and maybe he his way of thinking doesn't offer him easy (or satisfactory/any) answers to some of your questions? Instead of taking that as evasiveness, you could even take that as a disproof of his system of thought in itself. Look, I am certainly sympathetic to and appreciative of the Christians arguing in good faith itt. I hope I haven't come off as anything but. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to accept nonsensical answers, and it doesn't mean i'm going to stop asking follow up questions just cause the debate is imbalanced. If Cav is willing to concede that his religion isn't necessarily true, just that it's the one he connects with the best, then fine: argument settled. But it seems that he is trying to make the case that it is objectively true; that is, the story presented therein actually did happen, while simultanneously all other religious stories are objectively false; that is, made up by humans for one reason or another. But his justification for that belief is that he feels it. There are no "mathematical theorems" (as he put it) or logical proofs or even any pieces of hard evidence. The doctrine he follows is the one that makes him feel the best, and he is using that as proof that it is true. When asked how one arrives at Christianity, his answer is to try to feel it myself. When it's pointed out that all religions have some form of this feelgood element to them, they are dismissed. So my question is, why are Catholic feelings evidence of truth, but Muslim or Hindu or hell, even American Evangelist feelings simply delusions? And if there is no answer to this, why does one keep believing? What ELSE, divorced from feelings, convinces you of Catholicism? And if there is nothing, no external evidence, and no reason to assume your subjective certainties are any more true than other religions' subjective certainties, how can you really make the claim that your religion is true? It's your favorite, yes, it makes you feel good - but why is it TRUE?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why are you so concerned about what makes him happy, and that he's made one choice if the other choices are supposedly equivalent. Is it because his choice doesn't fit a particular political conviction? No dude, we're just discussing ideas. "The Spirit just moves me" has some interesting implications especially combined with a doctrinal believe that there is only One True Faith and it should be expected that such a thing will be followed up with debate questions and discussion on a Debate & Discussion forum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why are you so concerned about what makes him happy, and that he's made one choice if the other choices are supposedly equivalent. Is it because his choice doesn't fit a particular political conviction? Why is he right and all other religions are wrong? That's the jist of what we are asking. That isn't such a bad question, and is perfectly a reasonable one, even if he doesn't have an answer. But he SHOULD have had a better answer for the slavery questions other than 'No True Christian'
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:53
|
|
Nessus posted:Honestly I've felt like a lot of Catholic teaching (and thus the Protestants in the end) also more or less put more energy into worshipping Plato and Aristotle, and Paul, than anything some long-haired Jew boy said. Isn't one of the main Orthodox criticisms of the Catholic church, that the Catholics are way too into this pagan philosophical crap? Well, you need a way of thinking about the scripture as well as the scripture itself, and the only real systems of analysis going were Greek and Roman.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why are you so concerned about what makes him happy, and that he's made one choice if the other choices are supposedly equivalent. Is it because his choice doesn't fit a particular political conviction? Concerned is probably the wrong word, since the Inquisition's lost its teeth. But a little self-awareness isn't bad is it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes! Okay, this goes back to something I really want to know. Forget libertarianism. I'm over it. Catholic Social Teaching on taxes can be found here. It encourages a progressive tax system that affords for public services and the basic needs of the poor. I am hereby in favor of taxing the rich and providing for the poor within reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Forget libertarianism. I'm over it. Catholic Social Teaching on taxes can be found here. It encourages a progressive tax system that affords for public services and the basic needs of the poor. I am hereby in favor of taxing the rich and providing for the poor within reason. Why the change of heart?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Forget libertarianism. I'm over it. Catholic Social Teaching on taxes can be found here. It encourages a progressive tax system that affords for public services and the basic needs of the poor. I am hereby in favor of taxing the rich and providing for the poor within reason. Neat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Forget libertarianism. I'm over it. Catholic Social Teaching on taxes can be found here. It encourages a progressive tax system that affords for public services and the basic needs of the poor. I am hereby in favor of taxing the rich and providing for the poor within reason. Hooray! Francis shames another of his flock into decency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hooray! Francis shames another of his flock into decency. I really feel like Francis is doing a lot of good 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hooray! Francis shames another of his flock into decency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Forget libertarianism. I'm over it. Catholic Social Teaching on taxes can be found here. It encourages a progressive tax system that affords for public services and the basic needs of the poor. I am hereby in favor of taxing the rich and providing for the poor within reason. Well, that was quick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hooray! Francis shames another of his flock into decency. Bullshit. He did it in response to my brilliant posting. You're welcome 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
The one advantage to the Pope being such a bossman figure is that he has a lot of power to whip the crazies into line, for good or for ill.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The one advantage to the Pope being such a bossman figure is that he has a lot of power to whip the crazies into line, for good or for ill. It seems like the Africa/US Catholics are doing their damnedest to avoid getting in line with his proclamations, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Seeing as he linked to a 2011 summary... maybe he was converted by
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:05
|
|