Pretty sure it's now apparent that most Christians think more than Charletons.

In light of charleton's anti-Christian sentiment lately, here's some God hating black metal!

If you think that all the world's wars are a direct result of Christian thinking, you're smoking something quite sharp.

You act as if all two and a half billion of the Christian population are warmongering lunatics. Please, cut the hyperbole.

Hmm, that could be too. So then the virtues might really be only "symptoms" of love. :P Then the only way to describe what love really is must be to describe the "symptoms". So maybe love is actually unknowable. Thank you for the link! — Lone Wolf

I think so, too. In the Christian sense, we can't ever understand it otherwise we'd be God. Metaphor's the best way understand love, though, in my opinion.

That's just the problem. It seems to be an entire system of virtues, so in a sense, it doesn't exist by itself; but rather is a mere collection of virtues. — Lone Wolf

I think I agree here lol. This seems logical. But now what exactly does good will consist of? — Lone Wolf

While I don't entirely agree with Aquinas here (mostly because I'm not a believing Christian), his first reply in the following link I find to be an insightful distinction between will and appetite - take a look if you'd like:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm

Contrary to some of the views in this thread, I don't think love is a feeling or a sentiment. The mother, say, who experiences (feels) attachment, desire, happiness, pleasure - all these are goods. They aren't all "loves", so to speak, but are emanations from love. In other words, to experience attachment, happiness, and so on, one must first be willed them - to be loved. Virtues, then, like honesty, compassion, you name it - these also are goods which ought to follow if one is loved.

True love, though? I still think that it's an empty phrase, mostly.

You list a few things that love may consist of, but could you define love by itself?

To me love is to will the good of another. This is the classically Christian definition, if you're familiar with it. "True love", then, would really only be had by God, seeing as we humans can't attain love, truth, honesty, and so on in their fullest forms. So, I guess I believe in truer love, not true love :o :)

Now ask yourself where the bloody hell do you learn about Jesus, if not from a priest? — charleton

Having knowledge of Christ is different from being convinced of him. If the wagerer merely needs to know about religion x to believe in it, then he'd have to believe in every religion that he knows as they all, by and large, posit the same end - salvation of some kind. I think it's obvious that this isn't the case, as a Muslim wagerer and a Christian wagerer are convinced of their belief in different ways - that their definition of God is what one ought to wager on, that their ceremonies are truer forms of worship, and so on.

Yes, Pascal's wager is bullshit. — charleton

How so?

He suggests giving up the only thing you have; your own autonomy on the absurd idea that what some crackpot priest says might be true. — charleton

Where does Pascal say that the wagering person must come to his belief as a result of blind trust in a priest, rather than coming to his belief because of an experience with Christ?

Secondary lit? You'd have to go by religion and then time period. Even then, the secondary stuff isn't that helpful, I've found. It's more worthwhile to get a bulk translation of something, perhaps with a bit of notation and biography accompanying.

perhaps I’m not really a mystic — MysticMonist

I don't think mystics call themselves mystics, just as Saints in the Christian Churches don't call themselves Saints.

I think I’m a God alone kinda of guy. So maybe a acestic contemplative? — MysticMonist

What do you mean by this?

In a discussion about mysticism, why'd you pick the religion of Islam which has perhaps the weakest mystical tradition of all major world religions to attempt your point? Seems a tad strange, unless you're a Muslim yourself.

Being a mystic means taking the direct path that leads straight to God while renouncing the many erring and astray paths. It’s finding our path in God alone and not in institutions, theologies or philosophies or human authority. — MysticMonist

Dare I say the opposite - the "mystical path" is rather the least direct, and most murky, of roads that promise a deeper connection with God.

In other words the irrational, unreasonable, fantastic path? — tim wood

Even if I were to grant you these three descriptions of mystical experience as being accurate, none of them are bad if they are successful.

The mystic essentially claims to know what cannot be known. So how does he or she know?

Yeah, no. Not every mystic claims knowledge of what they call mystical experience. My old moniker on this forum had referred to Meister Eckhart - he's one such, famous mystic who has very little to do with modern "mystics".

As I understand it his company essentially held a monopoly on the drug, so while he tries to infer natural economics - that low quantity will raise the price - such a principle really only exists in a free market, not the closed, monopolistic environment that was (is?) the reality for daraprim. If there was a market for daraprim then the price would be more competitive and subsequently much lower. I'm fairly certain that Lipitor's price is valued through several pharmaceuticals, not just one. If there were just one pharmaceutical producing Lipitor then perhaps that'd jack the price up for pure profit, as Shkreli did.

As for whether he'll be arrested or whatever, I don't know. I admit to not knowing all his potentially criminal dealings, but I do know that he's a morally hollow wretch.

The pixel quality of your avatar is frying my brain, man. Meditation is supposed to make things clearer, not blurrier. And I'm even wearing glasses right now! >:O 8-)

There's something to be said about folk who wield power over others that they do not value and/or care about. — creativesoul

Yeah, kinda like you wielding power over the unborn child that will be cut out of a vagina like goop in a potpie.

I find it common for those who oppose abortion to also oppose public assistance for those in less fortunate socio-economic circumstances. — creativesoul

Common among whom, exactly?

If such people are in power, then they are making a woman have a child from an otherwise unwanted pregnancy — creativesoul

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, then that woman should not be having unprotected sex, sex that she, and her partner, knows comes with the risk of conception. Drink twelve beers at the bar, go out driving, crash into someone else, kill them, and you have something called manslaughter. Fuck your buddy, get pregnant, and in this bizarre, modern world such a woman is rewarded with a get-out-of-jail-free-card paid for by her fellow citizens. If murdering an unborn child was practically, and morally, equivalent to funding infrastructure, police and firefighters, etc. then abortion wouldn't be as big of an issue as it is.

and refusing to provide public assistance for those women — creativesoul

Perhaps because the state should hold no responsibility over funding and "fixing" its citizens' mistakes unless otherwise dire.

many of whom would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy largely due to financial reasons — creativesoul

Yes, yes, these poor, poor women who have enough money to either have health insurance or to pay out of pocket for an abortion but not enough money to get proper birth control in the first place. Please, just give me a break with this tired rhetoric.

including the quality of life that they want their child to have). — creativesoul

I'm surprised you've stuck with this as most loons who defend abortion have recently fought tooth and nail (lol...) in trying to argue that the "child" that is murdered in an abortion isn't actually a child, nor is it human, being only human once it's born. That sentiment is already shocking, disturbing, and sick, but to see you deny that and seemingly confirm the humanness of the unborn child to be murdered in the whom as being A-OK is just as shocking, truly.

So, if those opposed are placing the unborn child's interests into the forefront as the reason for opposing abortion, and deny public assistance(what's necessary to ensure the child has the best life possible), then they are - in essence - creating a situation which is not in the child's best interest. — creativesoul

A strawman for any pro-lifer who does support a functioning and efficient state with welfare services.

It's really hilarious that you try and make pro-lifers the monsters by lumping them all in the anti-welfare camp, as if trying to pull the wool over our eyes that you are the one in favor of the murdering of unborn children. Ridiculous.

Where's the rational moral standard in all this? — creativesoul

I've no idea, I'm still waiting on any rational moral standard from you.

They have difficulty because they idealize their parent, and no live person is going to match that ideal. — Bitter Crank

How many people actually do this, though? I don't even idealize my mother, so it's hard to imagine there being swaths of infatuated kiddos...

I think the willingness to forgive is important. And I don't mean just forgiving unfaithfulness, or an attempt on one's life by one's partner. Sometimes we have to forgive, or maybe a better word would be"overlook" or "tolerate" other people's flaws. — Bitter Crank

Isn't this why someone would love another? We need love because we are all flawed and I don't think love is a "toleration." I wouldn't describe a mutual growing between two persons in a loving relationship as a mutual toleration of flaws. Potaytoh, potahtoh maybe...

There is, however, a limit. A "mean drunk" alcoholic can be just too exhausting to put up with. A chronic gambler may be as exhausting as an alcoholic. Violence (hitting, striking, kicking, etc.) and frequent abusive speech ("you stupid, ugly slut"; "you worthless piece of scum" and so on) shouldn't be tolerated for long. — Bitter Crank

I think many people's limit on flaws is reeeeeeeeeaaaaally shallow and counterproductive to fostering intense and prolonged intimacy when people can't get past silly hurdles in a relationship.

The angle: many men look for a spouse that is like their mother, and many women look for a spouse who is like their father. They usually have a difficult time finding a spouse who makes the grade. — Bitter Crank

Like in what way? I'm fortunate enough to have a wonderful mother, but dare I say many, perhaps most, children don't have wonderful mothers or respect them to the moon and back.

If you pursue your education and fail to make bonds in the process, you are doing the education wrong. I'm 68 — mcdoodle

Really showing your age here, doodley.

I said this with the idea that having children and creating a family is an important part of creating and strengthening bonds which is of course an idea up for debate, and there is a biological timer on reproduction. — Eric Wintjen

Having children may create stronger bonds between people, but you don't need to procreate in order to make intimate bonds with others...right?

Thanks for sharing a little of your life, Eric (Y)

if we forsake forming bonds in order to focus entirely on getting ahead in life, when we finally achieve that goal, how much time will be left? — Eric Wintjen

Depends on what getting ahead in life means to "you." If it's just getting a career and making lots of money, then that's not really getting ahead, in a moral sense, unless your career, say, is something that directly benefits and strengthens people's lives. In that case, though, you probably wouldn't care about the money, so in effect you're getting ahead in a career and, presumably, fostering intimate relationships with others, either platonic or romantic. But again, if you're just trying for the money, or the prestige, or whatever else, then you're not doing what really matters, which I do this is forming bonds with others, as you say. If you're looking for a word to describe what is meaningful, it's love.

With regard to your parents, I think they must have loved each other in some capacity at some point, so perhaps they both made careers for themselves and made an intimate relationship work for a period of time.

Would you have to desperately rush into a relationship as my parents did when you realize there is a such thing as too late? — Eric Wintjen

Are you asking whether there is such a thing as being too late with having intimate relationships? I'd, again, pull back a bit and say that I don't think love can ever be too late to foster. It's never too late to do good, to help carry another's suffering and burdens in life. I am perhaps similar to you in many ways, and that I wonder about intimate friendships and romantic relationships and whether there's a timer on them, but I'm currently of a mind that love, if meant to be, will transpire as it happens. That said, love can also erode, like between your parents it would seem.

Perhaps you could wonder after what your mother, and father, might say to Tennyson's famous, "tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." Indeed, you could wonder too, perhaps again if you've come across this line before.

What resemblance do you think your mother will have to your sought after "good woman"? — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure about your angle with this question. I've met several "good women" throughout my life. I have not, however, (at least I don't think...) met the "good woman" with whom I will, presumably, spend the rest of my life with. Are you asking what that lady would be like?

It could have been that an alpha female looked you in the eye and said, "You. Follow me." And you followed. — Bitter Crank

Uh, the only thing that comes to my mind when reading this is my mom leading my little sperm through her darkness. Hmm, poetic.

Grats on the little guy, Grandpa Farer, O:)

Oh, haha. I just meant my mother. She found me in her belly and then what happened was that, uh, y'know...here I am, :)

I thought you were American seeing how uppity you are, :B

Anyway, I think it's unlikely that Trump gets impeached merely for being unpopular or being an idiot. He has to actually do things that warrant impeachment, which is rather hard, mind you.

Are they hard to find?

Have you found one? Then what happened? — Bitter Crank

She found me, if you know what I mean, O:)

Time will tell. Not much time, we can only hope. — Wayfarer

Do you want Pike Mence to assume control? :-O

What I said! Whatever poll you quote, someone will say 'fake news'. So you were baiting me. — Wayfarer

It's a poopy poll, nothing fake about it. Shite is shite.

Damn right, I overestimated the intelligence of the US electorate. — Wayfarer

But you're overestimating again by thinking Trump will be impeached.

It was a poll, in July - http://www.newsweek.com/support-donald-trumps-impeachment-higher-latest-approval-rating-631212 — Wayfarer

That poll doesn't mention gender, political affiliation, adult age range. Hardly conclusive.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-poll-favourability-job-approval-more-american-support-removal-latest-a7775781.html — Wayfarer

Same poll looks like. 1500 people is a minuscule tally.

I do believe he will be impeached. I think the Republicans will move against him. — Wayfarer

I have a feeling you also believed that Donald Trump would never get elected, either :\

What difference would 'polls' make? This is the post-truth thread, right? Whatever 'poll' one refers to, a Trump troll will come along and say 'fake news'. So I'm not going to go to the bother. Take it or leave it. — Wayfarer

Well, if not through polls, how else would you be able to claim what you did? You made the claim, I'm just curious how you came to posit its truth.

I'm skeptical because there are so many variables in polling that it's hard for me to make a decision about something if I don't know how that something was formulated.

Is there some place that shows how they've conducted the polling? Who, where, how many, etc.

Greater numbers of Americans believe Trump ought to be impeached, than believe he's doing a good job. — Wayfarer

You got some skimpy polls to back this claim up, mang?

No way Beebert is Kevin. Madness!

Well, Rebecca's first post in that submissiveness thread was pretty sexist to me, so my point is that Kevin isn't the only person that should be reprimanded, or at least may need to be in future. Being the university-attending, supremely privileged white, straight male that I am, I'm perhaps more aware of misandry, which is also why I found the witch hunt against Kevin, or Steve, really whomever it is, kinda unfair.

I said:
Nobody should be telling women how they should feel about sexism
— Baden

Hope it's clear now. — Baden

Just to be clear, you would also say that, "Nobody should be telling men how they should feel about sexism," right?

That whole thread is a dumpster fire from several members, honestly. I made the point before, but threads like that bring out speculative opinions to start with, so it's best those threads don't get going first then nobody runs the risk of making a wrong move.

And here you admit to what Agustino denies, which is this thread is about Mongrel. As since it obviously is, it doesn't belong on this site. This is a philosophy forum. — Hanover

He didn't just mention Mongrel, nor was his end query about her, but about slander guidelines.

I understand, but I hope you realize that I, and probably several others, will be on the look out for anything that even comes close to sexism. I just hope it gets deleted and shut down. I don't know why Agustino's posts weren't if they were so clearly and obviously thought to be sexist in the first place.

I think accusing Agustino of sexism when such isn't conclusive to be an attack on his character. Perhaps you're fine with members treating each other like that.

You making fun of Mongolians?