Christianity is based in grace though, not in deeds, not analysis, not even necessarily practice. It works for even the worst human beings. It's so easy, and effective. You can get as much as you can handle, as much as you're willing. You don't have to master yoga, spend 20 years meditating under the bodi tree. It's freely given, unmerited.

It's by far the easiest one. It seems so simple, repent, and accept Jesus, and there is no longer any need for the same sacrifices, mastery of practices as before. There is something about most other practices, and that is that the insights they gained through it, and the practices themselves differ greatly. They are not identical, and I wouldn't say that they don't work, but that doesn't make them equivalent. Most require ascetic dedication, but you could always just ask, and maybe you'll receive.

There is something about the arcane, philosophical, methodological mastery that renders other methods elitist. The ancient heroes, the masters, the unsurpassable, they speak to a special few. They tend to even recognize this, that for the layperson what is required is too involving, and thus the real high level discernment is only available to the dedicated ascetic. You have to be a special type of person to gain enlightenment, to be born into it, almost. To be a genius. Exceptional human being. Only the few can be freed.

Paul thought that education was good, and even helpful, but not necessary. I'm interested in ideas, in philosophy, but Christianity is indeed, through grace. Believe it, repent, be saved. Everyone, even the worst. Unmerited, nothing to discuss.

Similarly, one cannot get the results of yoga without mastery, or meditation without mastery, or virtue without mastery, and there is nothing to discuss, with respect to the necessity of that mastery. Plenty to discuss, but discussion will never deliver the results.

There certainly is no technical reason as to why scripture doesn't count as authoritative philosophically (as if theology and religion isn't a philosophical subject), but an authority holds sway because we agree that it is authoritative in the first place. Normally we reason about stuff, and use various sources as references, evidences, and things, rather than just "this says it, therefore it is true" (though, just look at the unsupported assertions that fly around the place with zero support of any kind, not even a reason given... just flat "this is the way it is" assertions that don't even leave room for response).

The only real reason to avoid scripture as an authority is when not everyone accepts it as an authority, and doing so would be offensive, or ineffective. It of course would always be bad for to just assert something is the case without giving any reasons whatsoever. Though I think that what is philosophical is the subjects, and not really particular forms of engagement with them.

I would even add that traditionally "philosophy" is not mere idle talk, but meant a way of life, which is precisely why religion is one of the center stage subjects, and the idle musings on technical subjects that one in no sense practices is what is not philosophical.

You said that Paul thought something, and then quoted someone else unattributed? Point being (seeing as Tertullian was versed in and influenced by stoicism) that Christianity is a revealed religion, and the ancient Greek philosophers and philosophies that Christian theologians thought to be in accord with Christian doctrine was explained by God having revealed something in part to them, rather than them being the influences or origins of Christian thought.

Paul didn't have a problem per se with Philosophy (neither did Tertullian), but he held different schools to be in conflict with his view, and inferior to revelation.

Three kinds of free will, in Christian theology. The freedom from coercion or force, the freedom of premeditation (purposely implying crime, as you're still a slave to craving, and sin). The former being circumstantial, and the latter innate to all reasoning beings. Finally though, there is a liberation from sin, and the freedom to live as one ought, or virtuously and righteously. This is acquired with practice.

That was Tertullian, Paul debated philosophy in Athens. Though he thought that their poets were on to more than their philosophers were.

In the Brahmanical schools, before later variants became about states of mind and experience (much like bliss and heaven in the west), it was about understanding language. Similar to logos, becoming one with the mind of god implies that one's thoughts, or understanding becomes identical to the underlying structure of the universe.

I take understanding language to be something mystical. That language wields you, rather than the reverse. Embedded in language is values, different communities of speakers assign different values to terms, they refer, and mean different things to different communities. I'm of the opinion that there is a correct way of understanding, and using language. While one is ideological, full of attempts to manipulate language to make things mean what they wish them to, they divorce themselves from that structure of the world, and live in a fantasy land. Embodying language, is the same thing as being in harmony with the very structure of the world, and this is why it is bliss, and rebellion, antagonism is misery.

For me, freedom from delusion, the ultimate understanding of the world, is precisely to align oneself with the true values of the world, which will properly orient one's comprehension of language. So that, the gesture, tones, and language that one uses tells a higher truth than what they even mean to, or know themselves to be confessing.

Would that be silly, would that be insane? Should I be ashamed of that? What if God were talking to you right now, but for all of those reasons, and maybe a few more, you won't hear it? Wouldn't want to be ridiculous... you're too well trained.

I promise you that it isn't.

Because you need to have a personal relationship with God, through living an ethical life. It's the most important and valuable thing that there is, and he is presenting an obstacle to it.

Morality isn't about making everyone else do the right thing, it's about doing it yourself. Most of the time we figure that people doing stuff that we aren't is what's terribly horrendous, and excusable, or deserving of more understanding and compassion when it's stuff we are. I propose the opposite of all that.

Though I hope you understand that I can't just tell you something and then you'll understand, it isn't like that. Everyone knows that religion doesn't work that way, right?

I'm for being the ways that I know to be right, for the reasons I've already given, rather than forcing people to do what I want. What he's doing is still terrible, whether you or he realizes it or not.

The reasons that I gave are that morality is about being a cure and not a poison. Not about just leaving everyone alone, and not oppressing them, or harming them, or telling them what to do! But about how your influences and behaviors reverberate through the world. How your actions have consequences much more far reaching than you realize. This is why all of the power is always in your hands, to be a light unto the world, and all that. That's what morality is about, what kind of karma you generate, how your actions have consequences. Being the cure, and not the poison.

Not like he is a particularly bad human being, other than his influence, and the swaying of so many people into thinking that religion is a ridiculous thing for rubes. Not smart people like them.

No, I have a very specific view about a personal relationship with God, that is just tops. Nothing beats it, by a long shot, but it's difficult to acquire, and harder to sustain. At base, you have to think that such a relationship is possible. That there is something to search for, and find. The details are not nearly as significant. Just some level of orientation in the right direction...

One is so deeply confused and alone otherwise...

Sam's arrogance, the significance of brutal violence in comparison to being lead astray is what I was speaking to, and saying exactly that it is not worse. By any stretch of the imagination. Not comparable.

Not talking about doing violence to people to avoid sin, but to those that lead people, perhaps by the millions, into it. The comparison to doing this, to hurting less people, or even the same amount. Since you don't understand what I'm talking about, and just think that physical harm is the worst thing imaginable, you won't understand this.

A serious matter. "But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea." - Jesus

I'm not in favor of brutal killing, and don't think that Jesus was either, but the comparison of worth and value is what is significant. He doesn't know what his arrogance is costing.

Sam Harris sees pleasure and pain. The terrorists are religious, and causing trouble because of their ideology. He is not. The terrorists see corruption and purity. They see a corrupt society leading people away from virtue, and into every form of indulgence.

Personally, I think that it is quite possible to lead people astray, and steal everything of true value from them in the process. I do in fact think that living in perdition is far worse than anything else.

This is unfortunate in general. People have a "don't physically harm or disrupt anybody" morality. A "leave me alone" morality. Not one that understands that if you hang around drunks, you'll be a drunk, if you hang around active people you'll be active, etc. That we influence, idolize, copy and are copied.

"A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom." - Bob Dylan

How harmful are you really? Is hitting people, or even killing a few brutally worse than leading a million into darkness?

Implicit in the claim is the idea that one only ought to have compassion for the innocent, and clean, rather than the responsible, or guilty. I would just suggest that this is not generally what religious people proponent.

More than that though, does Sam really think, either that the overwhelming majority of suffering, and well being is randomly generated by the universe, or that we shouldn't feel compassion for the suffering of those that are in some sense responsible for that suffering?

Further still, we really need to differentiate the two, for far more significant reasons than whether to withhold or let flow the tears of heart break, but so that we may actually do something about it. The tears are worthless. Though, I wonder if there are any examples of Sam being moved to tears, or showing a high level of compassion? Nearly moved to tears of laughter from time to time though I'm sure.

So both of you figure that education shouldn't be for any purpose? How decadent.

So education is useless? Or just ultimately not tied down to any particular purpose necessarily? Like you won't discover the purpose of education, hiding behind the nucleus of an atom?

"Do we? What about?"

Everything you happen to be right about.

I don't think that is true. Aristotle thought that education was for "exercising the mind" or our capacity for reason (he also thought that you should exercise the body, and then the mind), which played directly into his ideas of eudaimonia, and the development of character, which doesn't lead to "happiness" like a feeling one has, but one's manifest well being, and prosperity. Health, and wealth. Not a feeling.

Then we agree.

Yeah, and they tend to tell you that when you get the job, or even during the education process. That you don't actually start learning until you get the jobs. The fact is still that occupations have educational requirements.

Ok?

"Just keep in mind that what you are doing here is no more than setting out your own preference."

I promise you that it is not. Inferring that I'm in support of it, because I say it is so...? Not everyone works like that.

You don't really say much that is conducive to reply. Quips, and winning and losing.

You can't answer "yes" to a multiple choice question...

The first is like anything at all, any product, service, public good, it has to be satisfactory to some extent, and not a complete let down. Otherwise why keep it around?

Of course not, you're a hippopotamus.

Do you mean like satisfaction? Like they're happy with the education they got, rather than feeling displeased? Or do you mean reaching a place where one just feels good feelings all the time, and never bad ones? The first seems rudimentary, and the second terribly nightmarish.

Happiness isn't some ideal goal... like the pursuit of it (which originally was the pursuit of property), but never acquisition. Just ever increasing levels of adulation. Sounds so banal, and sad.

Yeah, and one can have everything, and be completely better off in every measurable respect to every other person not only alive, but that has ever lived, and still "feel" that way. At some point, the problem is you.

I don't think it's complicated, and speaking of "relative happiness", a person in a society with a wider range between the well to dos, and the got nothin's may report themselves to be less happy and fulfilled than someone in a flatter land. Comparatively, we have television, full of beautiful super genius lovable gods surrounded by prosperity, and even see the representation of others on social media as aiming at implying as much about that about themselves as possible, and comparatively one may feel like an ugly miserable loser. So that it being uncommon for all of your siblings to survive childhood would not be as terrible, if it were happening to everyone.

There is a certain degree of isolation, and insulation that takes place today like never before. Close my door and the world is gone.

Though, aren't we all just really spoiled? Would it be better if it were a lot harder to survive (as it unquestionably was at all other points in history)? I don't find that suggestion off the wall or offensive, but I do find it dangerous, and irresponsible. Perhaps it is so that we rejoice and find fulfillment in the greatest of hardships, but cannot fight the urge to set fire to heaven, because everything's a little too perfect.

Was there a golden age where people were happier and more fulfilled?

You mean like reality is capitalistic, or society? I don't think that the university was originally for employment, but for the already wealthy, to get cultured and refined.

I mean that if I teach you something, it is possible to do so for many purposes. Ranging from intending to solely elevate and benefit you, to attempting to solely elevate and benefit me...

I figure that starving, lack of gainful employment, lack of respect and a sense of belonging, and being a social tool without a use is likely far worse for someone's well being than feeling like a "cog in a wheel".

We're capitalists. Institutionally it is to get jobs, or fill particular occupations, isn't it?

I mean, the purpose, and even meaning is very wide, and varied. It depends on what it is, and intentions, though it also exceeds both. Learning a martial art could be for confidence, health, carrying on a tradition, self-defense, the instillation of discipline. The teacher's intentions could range from total philanthropy to narcissistic egotism.

As for the education system though, I think that it is mainly to situate you for particular occupations and employment.

Waistline is also predictive of IQ, as early as pre-school, but particularly by 40. Nerds may not be jocks, but they're at least thin.

To throw in for scientologists, more than scientology... it isn't without effect...

The power of it isn't in truths about alien overlords, but in the fact that they use working religious and psychological techniques. They make you confess your deepest darkest secrets to them with a lie detector, they have confession. They focus on moral improvements, and teach psychological and social techniques that change the way that people see and interact with you. They teach people to be more assertive, and kindly dominating, and self-confidence.

I'm by no means suggesting that scientology is in any sense good or true, but that scientologists don't fall into it because its stories are so compelling, but because of what it does for them in the practice of it.

I mean, at minimum. I'm reminded of Hercules' choice. Vice and virtue come to visit him while he is solitary in the mountains. Vice offers him a pleasing, pleasurable life, but virtue, a hard and difficult life, but with the possibility of glory.

If you can't derive pleasure from life, I mean you aren't really trying at all... usually if you aren't doing it, it means that you're doing it too much, or wrong. Sleeping too much, eating too much, lazying about too often. So, your suggestion is quite correct. At minimum at least make sure you're doing it right. That is difficult though, particularly in the face of boredom and isolation. Pain killing of poor circumstances, traumas, and all manner of life's ills. That itself is difficult to do, but that isn't even yet the difficult path. It's hardly glorious to not be grossly indulgent to the point of self harm.

What's glorious is something else entirely, and inapplicable to the measures of pleasure and pain. Glory, respect from others and self, an unconscious sense of confidence and self-worth that transforms your entire being, and perspective into something else entirely. Pegasus, friend of the muses, and himself considered the inspiration in place of the muses for poetry in the 19th century.

To be self-content, satisfied in a way that just doesn't register on the same plane as the pleasure and pain dynamic. Something that nearly renders that irrelevant.

Well, I think that neurologically we have "free won't", or inhibition. We can do a lot of rationalizing to explain our behavior, but it is mostly inexplicable. When it is premeditated, and intentional, this is usually considered dubious, and inferior to spontaneity. So that, the majority of our "conscious-deliberation" is about what not to do, not what to do. We never run out of thinking of stuff we could be doing, and things we want, but we do refrain from a lot of it. The better one feels, the more impulsive, and spontaneous. Right down to food energy levels. "Neat", or non-exercise acitivty thermogenesis, is just the random impulsive activities one makes, and they increase with higher calorie intake and decrease with lower caloric intake. Sugar also makes one do all kinds of big and often repetitive purposeless or obsessive behaviors.

I also think that the higher energy, more elevated someone is the less they are able to restrain, or inhibit themselves. That's why we have "crimes of passion", and we all know how intense emotions are extremely difficult to restrain. So that, I think that not only do we just have "free won't", but we also purposely maintain low energy levels because we're too afraid to allow ourselves to lose control, so must maintain levels of energy we can control.

Wayfarer said it. "I was lucky to enrol in an awareness-training group when I was in my twenties. Helped a lot, but seeing people coming to terms with their buried memories (colloquialised as 'elephants') was an eye-opening experience."

But what is far far worse than what others and the world has done to you, is what you've done to them. Those are the memories that are buried deepest. Imagine the most hatred and vitriol you've ever mustered at anyone, disrespect, distrust, and disregard being felt about you. Not by anyone else, where you can ignore it, or tell yourself things to feel better, but by you, and inescapable.

Yes, I think that you have to feel bad enough about yourself to end it all... but, you know, hopefully in the change and become a different person way, rather than literally kill yourself.