|
drat kyrie, that video is dumb. The over-riding assumption is that an objective morality is necessary to take action or judge, but that's nothing but fallacious. I can acknowledge that 'killing is bad' is a subjective statement while punishing murderers, it just means I have to take ownership of my actions. It also means you have the obligation to question your actions! Welcome to being alive.Nintendo Kid posted:Nice outdated concepts of history, time traveling William Gibbon. Sorry to say fishmech, but you have to get your facts right before you can act like a smart rear end. Also, it's Edward Gibbon, not William. rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:02 on May 3, 2015 |
#
?
May 3, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
Badass avatar Kyrie, LMAO This one's for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNDSjrdj530 Yours truly was proudly baptized by immersion on 04/09/15 in the name of the Triune God. Hope to see all of you walking the streets of heaven with me.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It was one big uplifting party, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Badass avatar Kyrie, LMAO Welcome home, friend.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
The Roman cities depended on their massive trade networks and the widespread use of slave labor for agricultural production, so it's not really surprising that when these conditions faded away in Western Europe, cities shrank away and the economy as a whole slowed down. But the medieval period saw a period of major revolutions in economic production. Of course, attributing the spread of the watermill, reintroduction of the trip hammer, the invention of the blast furnace, windmills, wheelbarrows, moldboard plows, rigid horse collars, cranes, etc. to the Church is a pretty big leap.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Plato's ideal governmental system is called Aristocracy. It has at the top of the political structure people with "golden souls" who show not only a natural inclination towards goodness but are filled with education, experience, and virtue. They shall not be capitalists; they instead are required by duty and discipline to live relatively meager existences, strictly on a government stipend, so as to dissuade opportunists from the lifestyle. They expend a lot of effort on cultivating the youth of their city-state (for the city-state is viewed as the ideal size of a nation in Plato's philosophy). This cultivation includes instruction in literature, philosophy and morals, mathematics, and science, as well as physical activities such as gymnastics/fitness and artistic activities such as music. Those who excel in their instruction are viewed to be golden souls and are thus positioned for a future life at the head of government. Plato was himself very active in education, being the founder of the Academy, in the interests of creating his ideal state. This government has a leader, the philosopher king, who is elected by the rest of the governing golden soul philosophers and serves for life. To me, this sounds more like the Papacy and its election by the Curia, than it does a United States presidential election, or, for that matter, a hereditary monarchy. And yes, it was this Papacy that led the West from the ancient times until modernity. It was this Papacy that can "claim ownership" of the successes that occurred under its stewardship, rather than only the blame it usually receives. All you liberals, and you capitalists, you nazis and you communists: none of your systems has anywhere near the quality of track record as does Christianity. They are corrupt, vulgar, filled with murder and death and injustice. You claim "ownership" of your technological achievements but accept nothing of the inventions and discoveries that brought you there, you do not see that you rest on the shoulders of giants. Your political achievements are temporary, your elections are a charade. The nations of Europe lay desolate, America is on the way out. Well done.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Wow this Plato guy sounds cool. Why don't you worship him instead of some Communist Jew?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Wow this Plato guy sounds cool. Why don't you worship him instead of some Communist Jew? Plato was tapped into the same essential source of goodness as Christ. It is often said that Christ was a communist, which is not true, as he did not advocate the forceful redistribution of wealth, but rather voluntary giving for the sake of the kingdom. It is also said that he was a Jew, which is partially true; he was certainly of Jewish descent, and was intimately familiar with Jewish custom, but he was himself religiously a Christian. The Church actively consumed, analyzed, and preserved the Greek philosophers. There can be no doubt that Greco-Roman culture was enormously influential on the West as a whole, including that practiced by the Church, which is itself the continuation of Greco-Roman culture, just fused with Israelite culture to create Greco-Roman-Israelite culture.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Plato was tapped into the same essential source of goodness as Christ. It is often said that Christ was a communist, which is not true, as he did not advocate the forceful redistribution of wealth, but rather voluntary giving for the sake of the kingdom. It is also said that he was a Jew, which is partially true; he was certainly of Jewish descent, and was intimately familiar with Jewish custom, but he was himself religiously a Christian.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So if you had to pick one or the other: Plato or Jesus? Well Plato had some problems. Like for instance he thought all children should be taken away from their parents at birth to be raised by the government in such a way they would never know who their parents were, and their parents would never know who they were. Instead everyone was supposed to refer to everyone from the younger generation as their "son" or "daughter", and those from the older generation their "father" or "mother", and those from their same generation as "brother" and "sister". Which I think is a bit much. He acknowledged it was a bit much, and none of the other philosophers in the group found it reasonable, but he insisted on it. Anyway... I'll go with Jesus because he is the Son of God.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
One of the great things about Catholic bibles that are CATHOLIC EXCLUSIVE is you get the history of the Second Temple period and how the Israelites interacted with the Greeks and Romans. These are in the book called the Maccabees! They are respected by Jewish scholars but are not included in the Hebrew canon. Nonetheless the Christians chose to include these books, and the Orthodox include them as well, because they were so important to the history leading up to Christ, and contained lots of interesting theology besides. Until Luther decided they were unworthy for some dumb reason. From the Maccabees you get a great impression of how the Greeks were trying to control Judea and enforce their will upon it. There was an ENORMOUS tension between Greek and Jewish culture at the time. Tons of Israelites were betraying their God and accepting Greek culture, and plenty of other Israelites were staying loyal, and even engaged in military campaigns to drive the Greeks from their land (which is, of course, Palestine). So that might give a little context as to why Christ's philosophy has Greek elements (and in fact the New Testament is written in Greek), why the traditionalist Jews rejected it, amongst other things. One funny thing about it is that in the Maccabees, Rome is always treated as a very noble-hearted senate which is extraordinarily powerful and is an ally to the Israelites. Some suspect this is the reason this book is excluded from the Hebrew canon, considering the Romans ultimately destroyed Judea, but I think it has more to do with the canon being finalized after the original exile.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Wasn't plato a massive tool though?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Whenever Christians insist Buddhism is a death-cult, it's funny, but also a little sad. But is tough? The Whole point of being buddhist is to escape from the eternal suffering of all living creatures by avoiding rebirth. Nirvana is just a state of permadeath ( normal Death to an atheist) as far as i can understand. That`s like the opposite of the christian version of heaven where you can constantly fufill all your pleasures and never experience anything negative. Christian Heaven is the ultimate exercise in self-realization, which to a Buddhist is just silly and counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
I think the idea is that you achieve nirvana by becoming free of want, you become happy by not wanting things, rather than having all your wants fulfilled. It is efficient heaven. Also practical advice for the living.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
You do realise Plato wasn't actually proposing the stuff in the Republic as an actual state, right?Kyrie eleison posted:Plato was tapped into the same essential source of goodness as Christ. Oooh, I love this stuff. Kyri, do you have any opinions on Hermes Trismegistus?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:You do realise Plato wasn't actually proposing the stuff in the Republic as an actual state, right? I'm not sure what I hate more: the wrongness of this statement, or the "You do realize ____, right?" phrasing of it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 10:35
|
|
Baudolino posted:But is tough? The Whole point of being buddhist is to escape from the eternal suffering of all living creatures by avoiding rebirth. Nirvana is generally understood as a peaceful transcendental state of existence and Buddhas, who by definition have achieved liberation from Samsara, are generally understood to have some sort of continued consciousness after death. But it's not important, because it's unknowable. What is important is liberation from suffering in life via the Eightfold Path. In addition, most Christians would not really argue that Heaven is a state of orgiastic bliss, and those that do generally disclaim any particular pleasure from existing in Heaven. OwlFancier posted:I think the idea is that you achieve nirvana by becoming free of want, you become happy by not wanting things, rather than having all your wants fulfilled. It is efficient heaven. Also practical advice for the living. You achieve nirvana by understanding that your consciousness is something that is contingent on your environment and experiences, by following the Eightfold Path, and thus quenching passion, hatred, and delusion, the three fires that generate suffering. It's not a matter of wanting or not wanting, it's about achieving a clear understanding of your desires and their importance.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
This certainly feeds my personal narrative that neo-Platonism explains everything historically wrong with Roman Catholicism apart from the child abuse.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:
That's true. I guess the lesson is a Christian Empire can last a thousand years as long as you don't listen to the Bishop of Rome, ever, and for the love of god don't invite Catholic armies into your city for military assistance.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:First, it's pretty easy: I already believe that Jesus was just a man, but I believe in Christ too. What does this sentence even mean? What does "believe in Christ" entail if not that Jesus was not merely just a man? Do you simply mean, you agree with his spiritual teachings? In the same way one might "believe in" Thomas Aquinas or CS Lewis? quote:I accept the possibility that the God part could be false, but I don't think that it is. The Bible is only a small part of why I believe in God, and it has never been required to be more than it is (a library of sacred texts of my spiritual and biological ancestors). Okay, fair enough. We seem to agree that the Bible is not necessarily accurate or true, though it may still be useful. But at the very least something being in the Bible does not prove that it is true. Agreed. quote:Second, no has to subscribe to any religion at all if they don't want to. To the same end, we are free to subscribe to one if we want. The mix of spiritual comfort and challenge is not for everyone, but many find it worthy and enjoyable. Be whatever best makes sense to you. Again, that's just your take on it. For many religions, including many flavors of Christianity, being not only in a religion, but in the right religion is of the utmost importance. quote:Third, I don't think it's as small as a minority as you say. I admit I have no stats, only personal anecdotes of people considering morality. It is definitely not a very popular idea with assholes, and they do like to make a lot of noise (anything to project their insecurities onto others I suppose), but who cares? Assholes are for loving, not listening to. Wikipedia posted:The doctrine has generally been rejected by Christian organized religion The thing is, though, that even finding Bible verses or official church stances in support of universal salvation doesn't do anything to address the verses that contradict it. It's very possible that both views have Biblical support. But that just goes to demonstrate more and more that the Bible is at best unreliable, and at worst completely untrue and fabricated. But of course, you've already conceded that the Bible is not a 100% infallible text. Which leads me, really, back to what exactly your religious leanings are. You call yourself a Christian, yes? But so far as I can tell, it's a version of Christianity so watered down it's hardly useful as a label at all. You disregard the Bible's authority, you admit sincere doubt as to whether Jesus was divine, you acknowledge other religions and even no religion at all could still fall within the salvation of God...these are major tenants of what is by and large called Christianity that you are so easily dismissing. But you would not call yourself a Hindu, or a Buddhist. You're definitely a Christian specifically, in your mind. Why? What exactly do you believe as it pertains to the Christian label and not something else, and what convinces you that it's true? Especially if the Bible and church authority are untrustworthy and can be dismissed. My guess is that you grew up Christian and have long since conflated "Christian" with "spirituality" in general, but you yet recognized the severe problems with it as an organized religion, so you've backed off from strong positions almost on principle and are now holding on to the last shreds of any kind of divine being, which you still conceptualize as the God presented in Christianity, at least for the most part. quote:I'm afraid that exclusion is not one of the major tenets of my faith, sorry? God's sacrifice is for everyone, regardless of how they feel about it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:What does this sentence even mean? What does "believe in Christ" entail if not that Jesus was not merely just a man? Well a whole bunch of Christian segments over the years have held that Jesus was just a man who happened to be a direct Son of God. Catholics/Orthrodox especialyl stamped them out a bunch before the Protestant era.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Well a whole bunch of Christian segments over the years have held that Jesus was just a man who happened to be a direct Son of God. Catholics/Orthrodox especialyl stamped them out a bunch before the Protestant era. I contend that calling someone "just a man" but really meaning God is their literal daddy is disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This certainly feeds my personal narrative that neo-Platonism explains everything historically wrong with Roman Catholicism apart from the child abuse. Also, I'm not so sure you can fully detach plato from the child abuse.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I contend that calling someone "just a man" but really meaning God is their literal daddy is disingenuous. Yeah if you're willfully dense maybe.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah if you're willfully dense maybe. Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno. Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I'm not sure what I hate more: the wrongness of this statement, or the "You do realize ____, right?" phrasing of it. Probably the second bit, it's pretty condescending. So just how much of a renaissance neo-Platonist are you? The full "two revelations, book of nature" sort?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:What does this sentence even mean? What does "believe in Christ" entail if not that Jesus was not merely just a man? Do you simply mean, you agree with his spiritual teachings? In the same way one might "believe in" Thomas Aquinas or CS Lewis? I meant that Jesus = the man, Christ = the-god-in-the-man, making the common name of the Christian god "Jesus Christ". Most people with an understanding of history believe that the man from Galilee was a real person, and Christians also believe he was God incarnate. I do agree with his teachings, plus I think he was divine. I can accept that the divine part could be incorrect, which is what I mean by doubt. It's obviously not a "strong" or "large" doubt, but it reminds me not to overestimate my own perspective and act like a zealot. quote:Again, that's just your take on it. For many religions, including many flavors of Christianity, being not only in a religion, but in the right religion is of the utmost importance. It's certainly a big concern for paranoid folks obsessed with being rewarded/punished. Some people are more relaxed. Both groups co-exist within the same religion. quote:As a matter of fact, it does not have canonical support. I think if I had said, "no one really believes in universal salvation", that link would prove me wrong, but all you've done is proven that some people have conceived of it somewhere along the lines. Duh. Might want to work on your reading. The link straight up lists some of the Biblical and Church Father's passages that support it, what else could you possibly mean by "canon" in this context?? quote:Which leads me, really, back to what exactly your religious leanings are. You call yourself a Christian, yes? But so far as I can tell, it's a version of Christianity so watered down it's hardly useful as a label at all. You disregard the Bible's authority, you admit sincere doubt as to whether Jesus was divine, you acknowledge other religions and even no religion at all could still fall within the salvation of God...these are major tenants of what is by and large called Christianity that you are so easily dismissing. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, in full communion with the church. Saying the Bible is a sacred collection of books is not disregarding it's authority, acknowledging the possibility of error is not the same thing as thinking I am actually wrong, believing that everything is reconciled with God at some point does not go against any tenant except the specific one it opposes. quote:But you would not call yourself a Hindu, or a Buddhist. You're definitely a Christian specifically, in your mind. Why? What exactly do you believe as it pertains to the Christian label and not something else, and what convinces you that it's true? . . . . I guess if you don't care about what is and is not true, then fine, go hold tight to your ill-defined security blanket, but you do seem to be asserting that Christian universal salvation is the truth, the real way the world actually works. I call myself a Christian because I believe in the Christian God, who is like, really huge. Monstrous even. In fact, this divine reality is soooo big, that it is reflected in other religions and spiritual traditions too. I understand the Christian one best, so that's the one I go with. Yes, I think that universal reconciliation is the mighty truth. Yes, it is only an assertion among many, but the others are weak and puny 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
For anyone in this thread looking for a bible, I highly recommend this one: https://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=7#tab=tab-1 I have experimented with a variety of bibles and ultimately settled on this one. It is a pleasure to read.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
College is a good time to experiment with bibles, just don't get too wrapped up in it that your friends find you "meeting king james" beneath a dark stairwell alone at 4 in the morning
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I'm not sure what I hate more: the wrongness of this statement, or the "You do realize ____, right?" phrasing of it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
I'm glad that most people, liberals communist and capitalists, can come together to agree that plato was a douchebag. Don't think there's any nazis itt, and I"m not sure they're totally against plato either. You'd think they'd love the idea of a return to some archaic order...say kyrie, isn't that you're all about? Interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'm glad that most people, liberals communist and capitalists, can come together to agree that plato was a douchebag. No serious student of philosophy thinks Plato is a "douchebag." I haven't seen any actual criticisms of him made yet, anyway, unless you count the one I provided.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:No serious student of philosophy thinks Plato is a "douchebag." I haven't seen any actual criticisms of him made yet, anyway, unless you count the one I provided. His views on governance call for an idealized dictatorship which does not seem any less prone to corruption by the actual accidents and mishaps of human nature than any other kind of dictatorship; it does not even have the virtue of experimental trial, the way that socialist and democratic systems have. If his system was so wonderful, how come nobody ever bothered to try putting it into practice? You can say that socialist systems are barbarous, murderous things, but at least someone bothered to make the attempt.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Nessus posted:His entire philosophy of "Forms" is a crock of poo poo (though I think it might, possibly, be an inadvertent description of how human brains process sense-impressions - which would also explain its widespread popularity). No, it's not. The philosophy of forms is ingenious. I don't know how this became a popular view here, but I assume it's because people fail to understand it. He directly addresses how he would select such a leader so that they would be most prone to seeking justice. You act like any other system of government -- and he does address all of the other ones -- don't have the same foibles, only far worse, because they don't bother to insist on virtue in their leaders. As for it never being put into practice, it's because it's difficult to put into practice. But I think the closest we've had is the system practiced by the Catholic hierarchy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
I'm not sure the Catholic Church can be considered an organisation of golden souled ascetics who forgo all worldly needs in service of their fellow man.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:No, it's not. The philosophy of forms is ingenious. I don't know how this became a popular view here, but I assume it's because people fail to understand it. quote:He directly addresses how he would select such a leader so that they would be most prone to seeking justice. You act like any other system of government -- and he does address all of the other ones -- don't have the same foibles, only far worse, because they don't bother to insist on virtue in their leaders. quote:As for it never being put into practice, it's because it's difficult to put into practice. But I think the closest we've had is the system practiced by the Catholic hierarchy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:No serious student of philosophy thinks Plato is a "douchebag." Bertrand Russell?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:Bertrand Russell?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
The advance of modern thought has been the slow replacement of plato. If you think anyone is buying into some nightmare police state without families, social mobility and unaccountable power, then you've go another thing coming. The control over music + diet alone would spark riots.Kyrie eleison posted:and he does address all of the other ones -- don't have the same foibles, only far worse, because they don't bother to insist on virtue in their leaders.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 00:24
|
|