Then a statue of Tecumseh Sherman represents pillage and rape, and so ought to be torn down. The American flag is thought by some to be a symbol of racial oppression, and so American flags ought to be burned. The new World Trade Center building in New York can be seen as a symbol of capitalist exploitation, thus it should be destroyed by having planes flown into it.

Do you see how flimsy your argument is, now?

I don't dispute that he made his choice, but it was the wrong choice. It was a choice based on an immoral economic system. To now treat him as a symbol, begs the question. — Cavacava

I'm not convinced of this. My current view is that he was faced with two evils that he had to choose between, and I don't necessarily blame him for picking one evil over the other. And I think it's childish to write off Lee's decision merely because slavery was and is immoral, fundamentally. The American Civil War (not Revolutionary War...) was an immensely complicated period in history, so passing quick judgement over people like you have done in this thread is pretty intellectually vacuous to me.

He was anti-slavery ironically. But a monument to him is just blatantly fucked up. — Mongrel

Why's it fucked up? We celebrate Tecumseh Sherman with dozens of statues across the country, yet I don't see anyone up in arms about that. If this debate is only about what the statue represents, then we should stop judging the person, because Lee is not the devil.

It's not up to me, the town planned to remove the statue....these thugs came in and created holy hell. I don't see any statues of Hitler up in Germany. — Cavacava

Are you really comparing Robert E. Lee to Hitler?

Ok, 155 years ago. — Cavacava

Bruv....

If I may chime in more, I hold that Robert E. Lee was a good and honorable man. Having learned quite a bit about his personal life and his moral convictions, I find it sad that he's viewed so negatively now. Even stranger when most of the reunified country admired him up until his death, and many didn't view him as a traitor.

The Revolutionary War might have been 150 years ago — Cavacava

Bruh.

Do you think world issues might be solved faster because humans would spend less time in "monotonous labor" or "work"? Thereby allowing a significant portion of the population to engage in finding solutions to current dilemmas in all domains from science to spiritual to politics to psychological and social issues etc. — intrapersona

Maybe physical and material issues, but mental illness would become an epidemic.

Deep like the pits of hell?

Thanatos has no soul.

You guys need to make a mega thread.

If you label yourself a misanthrope, then you've signed up for an unhealthy degree of self loathing, as hating humanity entails hating yourself as well. If you do hate yourself, then you'll have to then argue whether hating oneself is good. Framed this way, I think misanthropy looks rather silly. However, I think there's a difference between being a misanthrope and being misanthropic. I'd definitely categorize myself as being misanthropic, depending on the day I suppose, and fundamentally I do dislike humanity, but at the same time I see value in human virtue and in love, so I feel that I cannot be a full-on misanthrope. Perhaps I'm a soft misanthrope or something.

My point is Christianity is a failure with respect to overcoming human weakness of sin/death/worldly suffering. Just as the vacuum cleaner isn't effective at cleaning dishes, Christianity isn't an effective means of overcoming human weakness. It fails to clean sin and weakness from the unbeliever. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nothing is ultimately effective in overcoming human weakness, so again, knocking Christianity for failing to overcome suffering isn't saying too much since everything fails. The difference is the sort of afterlife that is promised if you believe this and not that.

But if you leave now our moron tally will diminish by one! If only you could then experience the grand state of the forum after our moronness has been curbed, >:o

Edit: I just realized...am I also a moron for interacting with morons? :’(

Exactly. That's my point precisely. Christianity cannot remove human weakness from the unbeliever. It is a failure at overcoming human weakness for large numbers of people.

I wasn't suggesting Christianity claimed or needed to do otherwise, only pointing out it doesn't meet the rehtoric of "grand solution to everyone worldy death and suffering." It cannot save the unbeliever. It advocates that human weakness. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, but this is a strange criticism to have. It's like pointing out that cleaning dishes with a vacuum cleaner isn't effective and so shame on vacuum cleaners. Really? It isn't the vacuum cleaner's intention, or purpose, to clean dishes, but to clean carpets.

I suppose you'll ask, then, what soap is the cure for dirty dishes (sin), but I'll tell you now that I don't have an answer to that.

Soon we're going to get to an infinite regress of an idea of an idea, etc. This doesn't really work because obviously the number 2 isn't the same as the idea of the number 2. A circle, isn't the same as the idea of a circle. A circle is a concept, in other words, a relationship between a set of points. — Agustino

Without the idea of the number 2, you can't conceive of the number 2 in and of itself. What I'm arguing here is that the number 2 in and of itself is hidden behind the veil of perception, and although the number 2 in and of itself presumably brings rise to the idea of the number 2, one cannot be certain as to know that would be to know the number 2 in and of itself, totranscend the veil of perception. If you think that such is humanly possible, then I'm all ears.

No, not at all, I presuppose this by just looking at the world. I don't encounter just physical objects in the world. Emotions for example are neither physical, nor are they ideas, and yet one feels them and encounters them. By the way, please be aware that I'm using "being" in the philosophical sense. — Agustino

Emotions are experienced within the lens of the material, physical world, as are ideas, the immaterial like thoughts, and so on. Merely because one cannot know the immaterial in and of itself does not mean that there is more than one being in which the world is understood, only that such a phenomena is different. How different? The essence of this difference? One cannot say.

Why? Human experience of the transcendent is so common - our history is littered with examples of theophanies. — Agustino

I would agree with you if you wrote, "Human experience of what is thought to be transcendent is so common." Again, as I've said several times now, we experience the idea of what we label the transcendent, the divine, the conscious landscape, and so on and so forth. We are unable know and directly experience what we call the transcendent in and of itself. What you're getting hanged up over is where the idea of the "transcendent" comes from, which is why I've clarified just above. And to perhaps clarify another way, consider the veil of perception the same as our inability to be in another's head. My being is inseparable from yours, even if we meet and find that we're twins, wear the same hair style, think similar thoughts, etc. Fundamentally, though, we are separate, such the same as whatever the transcendent is in relation to the idea of the transcendent. If you're transcendence in and of itself, and I'm only the idea(s) attributed to you, no matter how hard we try to align ourselves and be the same, we won't be able to. Perhaps this is to say: our likeness does not confirm our sameness, nor does our difference confirm our separateness.

It's that when enough members of the society do not understand what truth is and how it works, neither the problems nor the solutions will be realized... — creativesoul

Maybe because the truth isn't understandable like how it's a Wednesday at noon?

Under this measure, Christianity is an abject failure. It cannot overcome human weakness for millions of unbelievers. Indeed, Christianity is constituted by the presence of human weakness, for it specifies the hierarchy of Christian (strong) and non-Christian (weak). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Where the fuck are you pulling this shit from? Christianity doesn't claim to have a "cure", nor does it use Nietzschean words like strong or weak to categorize people. But if it did, it would claim that we are all weak and in need of Christ. Sin, which is the word you're looking for, is not a curable condition. No Church father has ever claimed the contrary.

Number 2 isn't just an idea. An idea is always an idea OF something (an idea of a circle, an idea of a man, an idea of God, etc.). Number 2 is a being, an entity, which is of a different kind than material entities in this world are. — Agustino

An idea of an idea.

What do you mean that "something isn't true"? Again, you're asking these questions, but you don't take into consideration how truth applies to different types of beings - you presuppose it applies in the same manner. — Agustino

And you presuppose that there are different types of beings based on faith.

Our human experience. — Agustino

Human experience of the transcendent? You can't know that. Pure hamfisting here.

Only if we limit ourselves to the "scientific" world. — Agustino

We're not the ones doing the limiting, the world is.

Irrelevant. Those don't claim to be transcendent as Mithras, the gods, and other spiritual realities claim to be. Instead they are empirical matters, which are indeed a matter of verification. — Agustino

They don't claim? What? So, demons in themselves claim to be transcendent, therefore they are? You've made no sense at all here...

Sure, the number 2 also exists, and yet you cannot touch it or see it. (Nor can you "verify" it for that matter). Not all beings exist in the same manner. — Agustino

You couldn't verify whether the number 2 exists in and of itself because, as you say, there is no coherent conception of numbers in material. However, the number 2 does exist as an idea. That it represents this and that. It's definition, in other words, makes it real, in that one can interact with it in one's mind, but not real in the way one interacts with a keyboard.

Again, where does this idea come from? If you tell me they had an idea of Mithras - where the hell did they get it from? — Agustino

Where does anything that isn't true come from? I can't believe you're asking this question, lol.

No, I don't think I've answered it at all. Clearly there was an underlying experience of trying to relate with a transcendent being/force which was capable of influencing the outcome of their affairs, otherwise they wouldn't think of doing it in the first place, nor would they invest resources to do it - they were quite pragmatic. — Agustino

Where did the idea of a "transcendent being/force" come from, eh? At some point your argument requires a pure understanding of a thing in itself, which isn't possible. You end up with infinite regression of things coming from other things which came from another thing which...

The reality of the transcendent doesn't only include God, it would obviously include other spiritual forces - angels, demons, etc. — Agustino

And flying spaghetti monsters, and unicorns, and.........

And how does the idea of Mithras arise? :s And by the way, the ancients relate to gods in a different way than you imagine. They prayed and offered sacrifices, etc. in the hope the deity would aid them in battle, but they were also aware of the possibility that they couldn't control the transcendent, and it was much the other way, the transcendent controlled them - so the possibility that the gods would lead them to defeat was also real, and accepted as such. — Agustino

You answer your own question here.

They couldn't believe in what he represented without experiencing the world as such. It's that underlying experience that made them believe. — Agustino

Uh, explain to me what this underlying experience was, please. But I have a feeling you won't actually tell me about Mithras in and of himself, you'll tell me secondary factoids and attributions.

What does being real mean? — Agustino

Perceptible, experiential, verifiable, and fundamentally private. This keyboard I'm typing on is real, being a part of and existing within reality, because it is perceptible, tangible, and so on (I can touch it, type on it, bash my head into it if I wanted to), I can experience its tangibility, which also means, therefore, that the keyboard is verifiable through both its tangibility and experiential quality. It is additionally not contingent upon any outside agent's confirmation. Me and the keyboard is all that is needed.

So, let's consider just Mithras, since he's the current example. Is Mithras in and of himself perceptible, i.e., can he be smelled, touched, etc.? No. Is Mithras in and of himself experiential if he's not perceptible? No. Is Mithras in and of himself verifiable, then? Obviously not, as we have no other means with which to confirm interaction with ourselves by outside agents. Is Mithras in and of himself a perceptible experience that is verified through one's own privacy? Again, clearly not, seeing as Mithras is not perceptible or experiential.

Okay, so Mithras in and of himself is a dud. But what about the idea of Mithras - all that which is attributed to be him, of him, and from him? Surely this is more the case, given the frescos, statues, and so on dedicated to him, the god of War. Merely because there were ideas of a war god named Mithras, said to do this, that, and other things, doesn't mean Mithras is real. And if he's real in a supernatural sense, then there's nothing to be said of it. To name a supernatural entity, give it qualities, a personality - that's all silliness to me.

I'll add that my perspective on realness is influenced by William James' system on thinking about mysticism.

Why the dots? It's true, how else do you think they came to believe in Mithras?! — Agustino

They experience the idea of Mithras, the idea that there is a deity of war watching over them in battle, that praying to him before battle will ensure victory. This experience of Mithras as an idea does not mean that Mithras is real and that he is, therefore, directly experiential. In other words, Roman soldiers would have believed in what Mithras represented, not in he himself, because no one had ever directly experienced him.

Nope, I didn't say that. — Agustino

Unless you claim to not be in a career, yes, yes you did....

Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat, as I have quit and tried tapering off my antidepressant — Posty McPostface

You don't really know if you've healed until you've tried going off medication for awhile. Even then, it can be a waiting game. I know that you can go off medication, be on a high for weeks to months, and then slip right back into the gutter, even when you've learned better. But again, you basically always end up having to just gamble either way, which sucks.

Mithras does represent an experience of the transcendent that was revealed to the Romans. — Agustino

.............

Depends what you understand by having a career. But the point I'm making is that to - say - work for Facebook - the community there will force one to give up on some of his/her beliefs, especially if they want to be appreciated, promoted, etc. — Agustino

You have a career in programming, therefore, you do not, and cannot, believe in God.

How can there be belief if there is no experience? — Agustino

Mithras is real because ancient Romans believed in him because they had experiences of him........sure, lol.

I really don't understand what you mean here. The difference is quite easy to see for me at least, why do you find it difficult? — Agustino

Because analyzing history is not simple. You can't just pick up some books and have a full knowledge of all the complexities of historical societies.

Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. And don't take this the wrong way - belief means action, you cannot believe only in name, for that is not real belief. — Agustino

The rest clarifies nothing. Clearly someone in modern society can have a career and still believe in God. Like, what the fuck? Again, you're mad, bro.

You can consider the idea of God, but for that idea to arise in society and gain prevalence in the first place (so that you get to discuss it today), the experience of God needs to be presupposed. — Agustino

No, I don't think so. There only needs to be belief, not experience.

If we look at the moral codes and cultures of different ancient societies we will see something that is starkly different from our modern, consumer based mass society. — Agustino

I'll say it again - you act like this is as easy as deciding which box of cereal you should buy. It's not.

Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. — Agustino

What the fuck? >:O >:O >:O

Is poor hospitality common in the US? — Agustino

Americans usually don't let crazy people into their home. We notify the police.

Can you illustrate that?

What is a concrete example of a conservative and liberal then being closer than a liberal then and a liberal today? New Nationalism vs. New Freedom? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Depends on how far back you want to go. Obviously an Abe Lincoln and FDR are more similar than a Trump and Clinton in domestic policy. Even Teddy and FDR were more alike than current candidates are. Look at all the ways that Teddy fought for increased financial regulation, health regulation, preservation of land through the park service - these are just a few tenants shared by supposed modern liberals with a Republican, and conservative, president just a hundred years ago. Meanwhile his supposed conservative descendant in Trump, and really any of the prior Republican candidates, want to strip up regulations, don't care about FDA law, and by and large don't care about the environment.

The idea of God emerges from the experience of God. The fact that the idea of God has withered away is a sign that something has blocked the experience of God, which until now was present - or more present than today. — Agustino

Questionable. Surely one can consider the idea of God, consider belief in him, without having to acknowledge any supposed experiences of him. Like right now, I'm discussing ideas about God, but I wouldn't claim to have experienced God.

It's not nigh-impossible. All one has to do is behold their cultures and compare them to our own materialistic one. — Agustino

You act like this is as easy as deciding which box of cereal you should buy. It's not.

Certain things are required of you to "have a career", "be accepted in society" (have a family), have friends, etc. The world is so structured to push Godly men to the periphery. That isn't so in all ages, but it is so in ours. — Agustino

I can have a career without being a slave to society.

Good, how much will you charge to accept me as a patient? — Agustino

I'll turn you away at the door. I only accept Jeebus.

Oh, have you been reading Pseudo-Dionysus? That's good to hear! — Agustino

Not lately, 8-)

Sure, but even if you personally were a Christian, you lived in a non-Christian world. — Agustino

In a macro sense, sure. Not in a micro sense.

Your expectations are governed by the modern zeitgeist in which you find yourself. An age governed by spiritual darkness isn't going to be an age where God appears very clearly at all, even to most "believers". Especially while they make their abode on college campuses — Agustino

I've not seen God in either good times or bad, so I'm not convinced of this viewpoint.

It's deeper than that, it's that God doesn't rule people's lives anymore, God is no longer a discernible presence as He once was. — Agustino

You have to distinguish between whatever God is in himself and the idea of God. I would agree that the idea of God seems to have withered away in the West, but you'd be a crackpot to say that God himself isn't still "ruling" people's lives.

Their problem was that they weren't even aware that God is dead - that God is not communicating with them. — Agustino

uhhhhhhhhhhermhhhhhhhh.......

Today if we shall go in the multitudes and mention God, we shall not be heard. They will ignore us. They will look at us as if we're crazy, as if we don't even know what we're talking about. They will not understand the meaning of the word "God". It will be as meaningless as sadakdhald. — Agustino

Even those who claim to understand God don't really understand God, hence all the mystery.

When I say you have forgotten God, I don't mean just you - I mean our entire age. You yourself are a member of this age, and therefore inherit its problems. — Agustino

You'd have to argue that previous "ages" were more in line with God, which would be nigh-impossible to do without donning rose-colored glasses.

You cannot accept the rules of today's world - be a member of it - and believe in God at the same time. — Agustino

Explain this, lol.

For one cannot serve both God and Mammon, one cannot have the mark of the beast on their forehead and yet serve the Lord. The way society is built, it's almost predicated on a rejection of God. To live in modern society, even amongst most believers, means to reject the mystery of God (most of the time). That is why people like Max Picard chose to retreat like hermits on a mountain. Where else could they live in communion with God?! — Agustino

We all have the mark of being a sinner on our foreheads. And there is quite a bit in modern society that we all go along with even though it's probably best not to in a perfect world.

I feel that the time is not right yet. All we can do is wait. But one day the clock will strike 12 and the world will awaken anew. We alone cannot save the world. A human being cannot be the light of an age, regardless of how great they personally are. The time needs to be right. — Agustino

You really are sounding like a crackpot now...

I will tell you later! — Beebert

This sums up God pretty well, lol.

Yes, that is because you do not understand God - God for you could be anything. — Agustino

I don't venture to define God as being this and not that. Attempting to define God is a theist's first mistake.

Yes of course, because you are born after the loss of faith. You are born in a faithless world. — Agustino

What? I was a believing Christian for the majority of my life, so I don't know what you're trying to suggest here.

So why would you expect to hear God? — Agustino

Well, yes, this is the point. I don't expect a heavenly vision any more than I expect to hear from the dead 'neath the earth.

From your perspective, it looks like there never was a God. That is precisely why it is a forgetfulness. — Agustino

Forgetfulness of what?

I don't believe in any God, which means that God doesn't exist as I go about my business. It wouldn't make any sense for me to somehow be forgetful of that which never existed in the first place, like if I lamented the fact that I forgot a memory I never had.

Also, I understand Nietzsche's "God is dead" to mean his assertion that God doesn't rule society anymore, which I think is true. I don't think "God is dead" is an "argument" for God not being real.

Sure, but there is always the underlying experience of hearing. — Agustino

I'm saying that a voice could be anything.

But really, you're saying nothing new. What you're saying is that God is dead - you cannot hear His voice anymore. Old news. We already know that we live in a culture and world which has forgotten God, and where those who hear God are the madmen. — Agustino

This suggests that God was real and no longer is, which isn't my position. I don't believe in God, which means at the barest minimum he never was and never is.

And hearing something and calling it God isn't also a mere interpretation?

The thing stopping us from hearing the voice is there not being a voice to hear.

Yes He does. God has the greatest track record anyone could ever ask for. One is willing to suffer for God, because God suffered for us in Jesus Christ! — Agustino

You don't know that.

I think it is modern society's forgetfulness of God - or Flight from God as Max Picard would say - that stops us from hearing the voice of our Shepherd. — Agustino

wut

A right is right, a moral good. Unhappiness is not a good, therefore it isn't right and not a right.

I showed very well the racist things they said and why they were so. — Thanatos Sand

I don't think so. Could you direct me to the back and forth where you do so, please?

If you didn't see them, you either read the thread poorly — Thanatos Sand

Perhaps, I don't know, that's why I'm asking you for clarification.

or share their racist views and are racist, yourself. — Thanatos Sand

Who gets to decide who is and isn't racist here. You?

Either way, I'm not impressed. — Thanatos Sand

I'm not looking to impress anyone, just looking for evidence and clarification.

Thorongil and Augustino said racist things and stood by them. So, I correctly called them "racists." Since you have a problem with that, I'm glad you don't want to be like me; I certainly don't want to be like you. — Thanatos Sand

I never read anything racist by either of them, and I never read any evidence by you showing that they were and are racist. Perhaps I missed those evidences?

Tell me this. If you are in the army, and your general asks you to charge into the open fire of the enemy lines, what will you do? Will you cower in your trench, refusing to listen to your general, preferring to live and die like a coward?! Or will you man up, and overcome your fear? For what can be more crippling and life-denying than fear?

How much more should you be ready to go even to Hell when God orders you, his soldier, to do so? — Agustino

If a commanding officer hasn't earned the respect of his soldiers, then those soldiers won't go into open fire because to do so isn't in their own best interest, nor is their best interest the priority of their commanding officer. If, however, the soldiers do respect their commanding officer, they will obey his orders to the letter, even if the order turns out to be miscalculated and a mistake. The issue is that a commanding officer earns respect through a verifiable track record of taking care of his soldiers and making the right call - think of Erwin Rommel as perhaps exemplifying this principle the most, at least in recent history. The dilemma with God being a general in your analogy is that his orders can never be wrong, they're never mistakes. If all you're after is trust between a soldier and commanding officer, you can get that with a Patton, Rommel, etc. You don't get that same sort of trust between a soldier and God, though, because God has no track record. He's never on the battlefield giving orders, nobody can sit down and tally a list of decisions made by him. A reality where an army has no commanding officer but God is one that won't ever make decisions because no orders are actually being given. That order to rush the trenches into open fire, or however you want to picture it, would never have come down to your or I in the thick of it. We'd be stuck there, left to make our own decisions, which would be a disaster.

The progressive/liberal labeling means so little these days. I'd like to think that I'm both a liberal and a progressive, like an FDR or Woodrow Wilson, but not like a Clinton or a Sanders or a Thanatos "you're a racist!" Sand. Strangely, I'd argue that even the conservatives of a hundred years ago were closer in political philosophy to their liberal counterparts than liberals today are to liberals then.

he was, in fact, essentially a [/b][ poet[[/b] not a deep thinker. — John Gould

Are you actually suggesting that poets aren't "deep" thinkers? :-|

LiTeRaLlY, wHo CaReS aBoUt TrUtH? — Beebert