|
Effectronica posted:This is a serious accusation. Trolling is one of the most horrific ecrimes imaginable. Do you have some clear evidence that will allow us to take down the troll? Troll
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
I'm afraid the only way to end trolling once and for all is going to be theocracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Could you go into this more? What exactly worries you? I'm interested in your perspective here. Ok, So we've got this problem with modernity and Christianity and a bunch of people come to the conclusion that a synthesis isn't possible (this starts with Barth's NO), and there end up being some responses to that: Barth goes with that Christianity is true myth. What ends up as the Neo-Orthodox route. Bonheoffer goes the religion-less route, but dies before making a systematic. I'm starting to think Bonheoffer's ideas may have something to do with the Death of God movement too. But Tillich does something new and comes up with correlation. Anyway correlation tries to take the revelatory content of Christianity and to correlate that revelatory answer with the questions arising from an analysis of the the human situation. So no synthesis, instead a correlation of question and answer, repeating for all new questions. This method is apologetic, questions and criticism arise from outside Christianity and they are answered and responded to with Christianity's revelatory content (Jesus). I try to do this. I try to answer my existential questions (and questions that arise in discussions like these) with Christianity's revelatory content. Correlation is where I take that from. Anyway in digging into this Libertarian stuff, I started to notice that they sometimes think in the same way. Questions arise, they apologetically answer them with the content of their religion, absolute personal freedom, usually expressed as "markets". This happens at widely ranging levels of sophistication. I started to wonder "how did that get in there, that's a pretty specific way to think?" Followed by "I wonder if they took that from Tillich?" Anyway then there was the Libertarianism "is a severely bastardized neo-stoicism" moment I had, followed by the digging into the Charles Koch stuff where I went from speculating to being pretty drat sure that Libertarianism is a dogmatic religion seeking theonomy. I kept wondering how does the conservative religious crowd tolerate what is a straight up competing deity. Which lead to, I wonder if they think they have a real synthesis of Christianity and Libertarianism? Followed by I wonder if the ideas from "Courage to Be" (or very similar ideas from another source) have something to do with this? Then I see David Brat make Nietzsche as prophet type statements, which makes me go: of course some of them have definitely read Tillich. I guess I'm worried that there are people out there who read this: "Where from the one or the other side, the attempt will be made to identify Christianity with, let us say, the American ways of life, as understood by some leaders of the present-day Congress. Now if this happens, then there would be a real situation of life-and-death struggle: Christianity would have to fight for its very existence. " And then who go: that sounds like a good plan to me. Lets do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Theocracy is a problem because very few theocracies have ever done right by the people who are not adherents of the state religion or who otherwise run afoul of points of doctrine (like for example being gay, being a woman who believes she holds as much value as any man). Constitutional democracy has a system in place that, at its best, protects minorities from persecution. Theocratic rule has no safeguards for protecting minorities, and no checks and balances on power. The rulers of a theocracy claim their authority from God, not the people, so therefore they are not really accountable to the people. Which is apparently not a problem because a theocratic ruler would OBVIOUSLY be just. Also, if we are to have a theocracy, what specific religion would it be, and why? Because the doctrine and principles of that religion would determine how that government functions. A Jewish theocracy would be different from an Evangelical theocracy would be different from a Catholic theocracy would be different from a Sunni Muslim theocracy etc. What gives any one religion more legitimacy over any other to the point that they have the right to govern? My contention is that theocracy totally falls apart as a functional and fair system if it is not run by just and wise people, whereas constitutional democracy does not require just and wise rule to function because power is more widely dispersed and has checks and balances. As an aspiring psychologist, I see one system based on a total misunderstanding of humanity, and another that to some extent accounts for it. That's my problem with these naive pie in the sky utopian ideas; they do not take into account modern advances in social sciences, at all. I mean, well, of course not, they're based on articles of faith, positioned in opposition to empirical knowledge. But still, these systems are functionally built for an alien species only loosely resembling people in their behaviors and modes of thought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
This is unrelated to what you are talking about, but I see a similarity in Tillich's argument of God as the base or stage upon which existence occurs to be similar to platonic ideas of mathematics. Mathematics in the platonic sense exists outside of physical reality, and reality is merely a crude approximation of mathematics. Tillich's God is also a synthetic a priori proposition, correct? E: Ok, I can see there is a fine distinction between Tillich's vision of God as the ground of being and a Kantian idea of God as a thing-in-itself, but I'm not exactly sure what that distinction is. I haven't read any Tillich beyond looking at Wikipedia so I apologize if I'm being ignorant. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
And how did you think that it happened, or rather, why particularly libertarianism ended up being the kind of surrogate god you're describing? From the outset, it's kind of an odd choice, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
The great irony is that you wouldn't need any kratos among the religious, if simply being religious made you good and upright automatically (putting aside what exactly good means here). The premise undermines the point of the conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:Tillich's God is also a synthetic a priori proposition, correct? No "God is not a thing beside other things". The truth of falsity of God isn't dependent on experience. Something like mathematics would be a thing. God is the unconditioned ground, not thing-itself, but being-itself. Our categories don't apply to God, even the category exists But one cannot talk about God independent of our experience. We can only talk about God in terms of our existence and experience. Assloads of Tillich: http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=24 Ultimate Concern in Dialogue is a good place to get the gist quickly. Also this is really good: http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2310 It's transcribed class notes from a history of Christian thought class taught at Union. I reference it a lot. The whole thing is also his argument for correlation. Negative Entropy posted:Mathematics in the platonic sense exists outside of physical reality, and reality is merely a crude approximation of mathematics. Yeah pissed a bunch of people off on that topic. Basically went , hey you all realize that is just neo-platonism and thus just an idealism right? And you are just appealing to something supernatural ( outside of reality) in a religious way. Also went onto argue that neo-platonism can get weird, even when it's just math talk, gave some examples of from commentary on, oh gently caress I can't remember who right now, one of the Greek mathematicians. But back to the Libertarians, what we have with the Libertarians is a synthetic a priori proposition (like math), but one I think not borne out by experienced reality for most of us. And they are trying to reshape reality with it. We had some people talking about axes essentially being for chopping. To which the other side responds: No existence precedes essence (and rightly so). But what other side forgets is that what we think axes really are, determines how we make and shape axes. If we think axes are for chopping, then the physical reality of the axes we make is shaped by our thought about axes. So when we get a Libertarian like Ted Cruz talking about redefining the meta narrative, that's like saying: No axes are for splitting. If we accept that thought then shape of our axes changes. Now what the Libertarians are trying to do is to redefine is the relationship between people and reality, if they change what society thinks of that essential relationship. Well that will change the shape of the axe, won't it. They're trying for a theonomy by redefining essential ideas, the ideas of our nation and faith (for some of us) and this has real repercussions on reality and us. rudatron posted:And how did you think that it happened, or rather, why particularly libertarianism ended up being the kind of surrogate god you're describing? From the outset, it's kind of an odd choice, right? I think it has something to do with the whole Libertarian: we're in this long line of thought leading back to Aristotle thing. Why do libertarians name their think tanks after Cato? I think they are looking to stoicism. "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature" (Bertrand Russel describing Stoicism). But they're half assing it. They've got this bastardized Stoicism going on with their "virtue economics" and "natural law" talk. It's not a new surrogate god, it's an old competitor they dusted off in desperation because they were losing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:No "God is not a thing beside other things". The truth of falsity of God isn't dependent on experience. Something like mathematics would be a thing. God is the unconditioned ground, not thing-itself, but being-itself. Our categories don't apply to God, even the category exists But one cannot talk about God independent of our experience. We can only talk about God in terms of our existence and experience. Why does this sound like a very poorly worded Transcendental Argument for God?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why does this sound like a very poorly worded Transcendental Argument for God? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
It's no fun if you give away the answer right away. < >
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why does this sound like a very poorly worded Transcendental Argument for God? Well it's God above God, the Transcendental Argument for God is just more theological theism. The transcendental argument doesn't address radical doubt and despair. It doesn't address real total separation from God. It breaks down with "Why have you forsaken me?", the moment where God is not present. And further it forces that moment because we are utterly unacceptable before a prefect transcendent ideal. Here's some anime saying that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weK5m6Jn0zY
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
You've done it, you've made the ultimate post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Well I'm laughing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
If you think I'm clicking a video you posted of anime with the word "mindrape" in it then you're dumber than usual. I'm pretty sure I'd get put on some sort of FBI watch list if I clicked it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
And it's a dub, speaking of being abandoned by God.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Meh, I assumed you'd already seen it. I seem to remember you posting in the evangelion thread right? Edit: hey now, only could find the dub in a youtube. Watched the real thing subbed like a civilized person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Hell if I remember if I did or not. But knowing that it's Evangellion and what I've heard about it then I know it's creepy pedo spank imagery and there's no way in hell I'm touching it. Plus: SedanChair posted:And it's a dub, speaking of being abandoned by God. You can't even do anime right. You poor, pathetic person you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And it's a dub, speaking of being abandoned by God. The dub isn't bad, watching dubs are legitimate choices in anime viewing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Nothing about anime is legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Well if I can't find the divine in poo poo where else am I going to find it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Well if can't find the divine in poo poo where else am I going to find it? I'd not normally endorse the anime, but if revulsion from it will also finally bring you to cast aside your feverishly impenetrable theology then I guess I'm left in an awkward spot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:The dub isn't bad, watching dubs are legitimate choices in anime viewing. You're consistent, anyway. God forbid you be right about even one thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Seriously though revelation abolishes religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH32Chen5Vo
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
The real deep philosophical question here is how a predisposition for Christianity turns you into a weeaboo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:The real deep philosophical question here is how a predisposition for Christianity turns you into a weeaboo. It takes a distinguished mind for both pursuits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:The real deep philosophical question here is how a predisposition for Christianity turns you into a weeaboo. Goodness of heart and inherent morality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:It takes a man-child's mind for both pursuits. FTFY
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:FTFY http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3649233#post431948924
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:It takes a distinguished mind for both pursuits. So what's your excuse, then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:So what's your excuse, then? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz148nT-UMg
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Negative Entropy posted:The real deep philosophical question here is how a predisposition for Christianity turns you into a weeaboo. Only sinners seek redemption
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And it's a dub, speaking of being abandoned by God. Smoking Crow posted:The dub isn't bad, watching dubs are legitimate choices in anime viewing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
That people are honestly and without irony pointing towards anime as demonstrations of theology proves there is no God, else he would have smote Brandor dead years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That people are honestly and without irony pointing towards anime as demonstrations of theology proves there is no God, else he would have smote Brandor dead years ago. Anime is proof of a loving God and your antipathy towards it proves your baseness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Actually if god really was an aspie weaboo it would explain a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Actually if god really was an aspie weaboo it would explain a lot. She is already you loving retard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruhi_Suzumiya
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:What say you? Would you like to live in a theocracy? As far as I can tell, the primary selling point of theocracy over democracy is that humans are fallible, stupid and prone to corruption. Therefore, they are unfit to rule themselves and should be governed by a higher power that is free from such defects. However, this obviously does not apply to indirect theocracies with priesthood as the ruling class. Since priests come from human stock, they are just as fallible, stupid and corrupt as the rest of us. For examples, see pretty much the entirety of human history. Direct theocracy (i.e., a society ruled by an actual god or godlike entity) is a different matter. The closest implementation I can think of would be a society governed by a benevolent self-programming super-AI. However, at that point, I would expect humanity to evolve into a new posthuman species that would have no need for rulership or gods anyway. Rogue AI Goddess fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:30 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:So what's your excuse, then? Did you know that that motherfucker wrote an entire thread about his insane, literally ins ane belief that, e.g., A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is better than Dragonlance XXVIII?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 16:45
|
|