I'm saying that maybe there's not a philosophical solution to that problem, maybe there's only a medical one. — Pfhorrest

On the contrary! .. medicine has no power to solve the mental problems you have expressed, and philosophical errors are the only cause of them.

functionality, which is what varies between me and rocks and clouds and so on. A rock may have a "first-person experience" — Pfhorrest

See, I can pick the first thing you say and show you, the problem is a philosophical bind of non-sense, rooted in an unrealistic idealism. Medicine can't solve that problem. The solution only comes by understanding that the true reason that your "first-person experience" is not like a rock's "first-person experience", is not because of function, but life. That is why only philosophy can fix mental illness, and medication, as a pacifier and substitution, can be useful in buying valuable time for Him who does the healing work.

It is important to remember that not everyone does choose to do the morally right thing. When that happens, they have calculated that it will benefit them to do immorally.

The difference is one is a righteous action, the other is wicked. I like the definition of righteousness that says it is "moral justifiability" - or "to be justified, morally". It is a rich definition for this purpose, because we understand that to be justified morally, we need to behave in such manner that the truth proves we have done morality instead of immorality. Therefore, to do immorality, we are forced to reconcile the question "how can we explain our actions as being moral, according to the truth?"

In order to do immorality, one must choose therefore: oppose the truth (lying etc), or adjust the moral compass (which is a more serious type of deceit - to deceive oneself and to teach others to do likewise).

When talking of God and the devil, the devil is the spirit of deceit while God is the spirit of truth. (Of course, it is natural that a person who is doing deceit will say they are doing truth, because that is necessary for them to be morally justified - therefore, a person who says they are doing morality in the name of God might well have fallen into the spirit of deceit - in fact doing the devil's work while saying they are doing God's work: Matthew 12:25, John 13:35, John 10:10).

So in summary, "accountability according to the truth" and "honour" are the reasons that a person would do the morally good thing - where a willingness to forego these is required in order to not do the moral thing (their desire successfully bribes them to corruption - James 1:14-15).

It's this pronoun I am talking about. Its proper spelling lacks an apostrophe. It's not a big deal, but it's the most common mistake made in English spelling even by its most learned users. It's a world of a difference when it reflects its users academic ability and learnedness. — god must be atheist

It just looks wrong to me because of the principles of rule 1a, but I guess I can grow to appreciate it. The examples you gave here have helped me to appreciate it too! :D

I understand your advice about guarding reputation, and I will make use of that. Being mindful of the cost, I do think that sometimes I will choose to break the rules where it is useful for special emphasis.

Thanks for delving into the issue of how to be childlike in the Christian sense to illuminate the wording for my sake. I hope there was something in it for you, too... and it looks like there was. — god must be atheist

Yeah I didn't notice it until you said it, but now I am thinking more too, about the nature of humbleness being measured as an absence of pride, and looking to see whether there is any distinction of honour between persons of perfect humbleness (which I can't recall from memory). So, yes I will be understanding better as I continue to observe with that context. Thanks! :)

Oh, and one bit of advice, meant well, and sincerely, to improve your style to make it even more reflective of a wise old soul. You wrote, "until pride works it's way in through" whereas you should have written "its" in the middle. No apostrophe. — god must be atheist

That's interesting.. thanks for mentioning it! (I do disagree with a few of the rules in English, because they are wrong). So I did a Google search for "apostrophe rules" and I found this article:

https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp, where rule 8 contradicts rule 1a:

Rule 1a. Use the apostrophe to show possession. To show possession with a singular noun, add an apostrophe plus the letter s.

Examples:
a woman's hat
the boss's wife
Mrs. Chang's house

(So that is how I used the apostrophe)

.. but Rule 8 says this:

Rule 8. The personal pronouns hers, ours, yours, theirs, its, whose, and the pronoun oneself never take an apostrophe.

Examples:
Correct: Feed a horse grain. It's better for its health.

Incorrect: Who's glasses are these?
Correct: Whose glasses are these?

Incorrect: Talking to one's self in public is odd.
Correct: Talking to oneself in public is odd.

.. and I do not like it. Maybe it is pride, I will need to consider it. Sometimes, just as my topic has said, culture is wrong and the non-conformity is the right thing to do. I'll think about it.

But how can a child humble himself when he has no shame? To humble oneself, one must have pride. Humbling yourself is a process of losing pride and shame. Once you went through the humbling, then you achieve the state of being humble. If you have no pride, no shame, then there is no objective in humbling yourself... — god must be atheist

That's very astute and you seem to be making an observation that I can't say is untrue .. so I had to look at the original Greek language, because yes, I would agree that it wouldn't reach my expectations of a word of truth, to have such a logical problem. So I have found an opportunity for improvement in the translation, where it says "Whoever then shall humble himself like this child", it naturally lends itself to read as you have done "Whoever then shall humble himself like this child [has done]" .. whereas a more exact translation might say "Whoever then shall humble himself [to become] like this child".

I find this through the Strong's concordance on this website: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/18-4.htm, where it says

• 
  hostis
  ὅστις
  Whoever (whosoever, whichsoever, whatsoever)
• 
  oun
  οὖν
  therefore (therefore, then)
• 
  tapeinōsei
  ταπεινώσει
  will humble (I make or bring low, humble, humiliate; pass: I am humbled)
• 
  heauton
  ἑαυτὸν
  himself (himself, herself, itself)
• 
  hōs
  ὡς
  as (as, like as, about, as it were, according as, how, when, while, as soon as, so that)
• 
  to
  τὸ
  the (the, the definite article)
• 
  paidion
  παιδίον
  little child (a little child, an infant, little one)
• 
  touto
  τοῦτο ,
  this, (this; he, she, it)
• 
  houtos
  οὗτός
  he (this; he, she, it)
• 
  estin
  ἐστιν
  is (I am, exist)
• 
  ho
  ὁ
  the (the, the definite article)
• 
  meizōn
  μείζων
  greatest (large, great, in the widest sense)
• 
  en
  ἐν
  in (in, on, among)
• 
  tē
  τῇ
  the (the, the definite article)
• 
  basileia
  βασιλείᾳ
  kingdom (kingship, sovereignty, authority, rule, especially of God, both in the world, and in the hearts of men; hence: kingdom, in the concrete sense)
• 
  tōn
  τῶν
  of the (the, the definite article)
• 
  ouranōn
  οὐρανῶν .
  heavens (heaven, (a) the visible heavens: the atmosphere, the sky, the starry heavens, (b) the spiritual heavens)

.. so we do have problems by not getting the full meaning of the original language (and by getting deficiencies through the translators' best efforts).

Here's some better comparisons:

Berean Literal Bible
Therefore whoever will humble himself as this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens.

Christian Standard Bible
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child--this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Contemporary English Version
But if you are as humble as this child, you are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Good News Translation
The greatest in the Kingdom of heaven is the one who humbles himself and becomes like this child.

Yep, no problem. You can see it in Matthew 18:1-5, from the Tree of Life Version:


At that hour the disciples came to Yeshua, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

And He called a child to Himself, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Amen, I tell you, unless you turn and become like children, you shall never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then shall humble himself like this child, this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in My name, welcomes Me.

In my mind, there's nothing more central and grounding for a man to feel prideful. — Wallows

I have come to understand quite the opposite as being true, after observing that pride is a deconstruction of a natural innocence. But also, as you are finding in this thread, the word functions differently in different contexts.

The pride that is sinful is rooted in a personal insecurity, where one's need is to promote his image in order to gain recognition. One aspect of that, is a fear for being denigrated by others, and when you observe how "masculinity" develops in boys, you will see that it begins as they are mocked or ridiculed for their sensitivities. There is a cultural error that suggests sensitivity, kindness, tenderness are feminine qualities, while toughness and brutishness are masculine qualities. So boys gradually become aware that they are behaving in a "feminine" manner, that empowers their insecurity, to begin closing their sensitive side and developing machoism.

So, while it is pride in conforming to the established "male" character, so that Daddy can be proud of his "tough wee man", and likewise the wee man is proud to be big and tough like his Dad, it really does make us feel ashamed of the part of us that is naturally nice.

When a person does not conform to the role for their gender as imposed by the dominant power/s, they are forced to defend their identity. Because the nature of those who persecute them is sinful (they do not love and support them for who they are in truth - pride is placing conditions on their love), the child finds that expressing pride is a response that deflects the ridicule. Ultimately it is because sin is achieving it's objective, that it momentarily succombs in order to groom the child's confidence in relying upon sin (consider Luke 11:15-22). Then, when they find support from others who sympathise, they join the culture and, taking pride in the established resilience to the injustice, grow to conform to the image of their preferred culture.

Pride takes many forms, not just gender. For instance, there are cultural contentions like washing hands after using the toilet, veganism, sports, music, etc. (For instance, my father bought a computer for me when I was young because he thought I would do well with computers, but in the culture of my town in that time, typing was a woman's job, and I didn't know that computers were about more than typing so I wasn't interested until later in life when it came to me as a supporting tool for other interests). Similarly, there is an older generation who did not have computers, and having been put to shame by the smart confidence of the younger generations, took pride in not adapting. So they are stuck, by pride, in a state of ignorance. They are afraid to learn, because it robs them of dignity - a dignity that they believe us owed to them on account of having predated the technology, and humbling themselves to be taught by the generation that culture says they should be the teachers of.

So that is why I have said that pride is not a central part of being a man, because it in fact robs us from our confidence in being who we truly are meant to be. When you look at children, they don't have such shame in their wholeness of character. In fact, children have no shame whatsoever, until pride works it's way in through the workings of the sin in the world around them, that develops a sense of insecurity and shame for the parts of the boy that it is ashamed by.

That's why Jesus says that we must "turn back and become again as a little child", and other language in the same faith explains that we must "circumcise the foreskin of our heart" (which is poetry, of course - does a heart have foreskin? .. no, but of course there is a parallel effect of the foreskin as being a garment, just as our pride shields our heart from exposure).

One more step, is Genesis 3:16 "your sorrow will multiply and your childbearing will be full of pain, for you will long for your husband but he will be a ruler toward you". Can you see how the man's sin, having become ashamed of his sensitive, real side, and having buried it under machoism and brutishness, is depriving the wife of the intimacy and fulness of love that she naturally craves?

That's why I am more inclined to say that pride takes away from the man, an essential part of being a man, and as a result of finding frustration in his female companion, finds sympathy in his male companions, that where society encourages, can develop into more gratifying acceptance of who we truly are (ironically - seeing as it is all based on a self-denial of part of who we are made to be!).

Likewise, the girls are hurt by the guys' insensitivity and brash womanizing, so they find more fulfilling love in their female friends (because it is that female-type nature that the man has been groomed to cut out of his character in pride).

Now, all of this is not to say that we shouldn't be confident in who we are, or acknowledge our strengths and achievements, because that is simply a recognition of truth when it applies, and it is possible to be so honest while being humble, that comes from a spirit that is securely set above all reproaches (noble).

So we find the truth in this, that love is an opposite of sin, where sin operates to do harm for a self-centred purpose (such as exalting one's self by dishonouring others), whereas love exalts the truth, (even while risking indignity by those who would judge enviously), and love, while putting on display things that are worthy of praise, selflessly encourages others to aspire for greatness where it will produce the same rewards in them.

But I never said gossip wasn’t harmful, just not necessarily harmful. — Possibility

Ok, granted that it must be made effective by a possessor, to produce harm.. I would like to see if we can identify what makes the difference between harmless and harmful gossip.

First, I think definition is important, otherwise we might be confounded invalidly. So, would you agree with the definition from uncanni:

saying something about someone that I wouldn't say in front of them — uncanni

I think it is a very good definition, because it shows that the conscience is condemning the speech for fear of consequences, or that the possessor of the content is afraid that the power of the content is threatened by the opportunity of the subject to contribute contrary fact.

about other people’s lives that may not necessarily be confirmed as true — Possibility

Anything that is not of truth but carries the weight of truth, is harmful.

cousin and her friend were caught — TessiePooh

Your language, reflecting society's natural judgement, makes it sound criminal. I wonder whether you could share your thoughts about how that fits with your idea that it is a "very human entity"?

It really depends on the method of training. For instance, a parrot can learn to say words, but does it understand what the words mean?

Artemis said there are types of intelligence. That's quite useful, because we see the same effect in humans who have rote knowledge versus those who have understanding. It also explains how cats can be intelligent, curious and clever but not easy to train. One type is very brainy (thinking accurately, is not corrupted by a bribe), the other is sensual (will perform for a reward).

Laws are also constructed to empower gossip and pervert justice, because the lawmakers are of the nature to do gossip rather than justice. They do not understand that privacy is different from secrecy, but privacy and secrecy are ultimately of opposing intentions (one protects a person's right to be seen in truth, the other protects a person's fear of being seen in truth).

Ultimately, it is stroking a lust for crueleness. A person who loves truth and justice does not operate with gossip, because our nature is to bring knowledge of the truth to light. We ask what is the basis of the information, and we ask the subject for their own views so as to make an accurate judgement. Gossipers do not entrust their equipment to us for that reason: it disempowers their slander.

in their right mind — jorndoe

That's the definitive piece, isn't it? (Matthew 7:15, John 18:37, Matthew 18:20, 2 Peter 2:1-2, 2 Timothy 3:5-7).

"Can you lie but at the same time tell the truth?" — Patulia

The truth can be used as a lie, for sure. A lie is, by nature, leading a person to understand a thing that is not true.

In your example, it would have been a lie to lead my friend to believe I had seen a cat when I had seen a dog. If I had said I'd seen a dog, and afterward discovered that it was a cat, it would not be a lie to say I had seen a dog, because I had seen the animal insuffiently to accurately discern it's type, thus it's appearance resembled a dog to the best of my ability. I was within rights to believe it was a dog until clarification became available.

Consider what Jesus said of the devil: "he is the father of lies. When he lies, he speaks his native language", and St Paul echoes: "Satan masquerades as an angel of light". Others have said "the most convincing lies are sprinkled among truth".

Everyone knows that truth is an honorable thing. Everybody knows that it is dishonorable to be disaligned with the truth. Yet, there are times when people's views are not of the truth.

When a person is trying to convince others that they are doing truth when they are doing lie, they are still bound to use elements of truth in their campaign - although ultimately, their use of it is invalid, because their objective is to lead someone to an understanding that is not of the truth.

"[...] no lie is of the truth" 1 John 2:21

Judgment, in order to be of any significance has to have the power of enforcement. The greatest power on the scene has that power. Any lesser wielders of power are themselves subject to this greatest power. — frank

I agree. That is why sometimes truth does not have power, even though it could (and I would say it should). Ultimately, the greatest power has to love the truth enough to act for the interests of justice, which is why I have specified that only a "righteous authority" empowers the truth. A morally compromised authority, rather, empowers corruption. Corruption relies upon deceit, untruth, evasion of, and suppression of truth.

Unless the government is divided against itself. — frank

I don't think that negates the principles though. Notice Proverbs 28:2's observation of a nation in rebellion: they are not clinging to a supreme power, thus there are factions of power (the nation is divided against itself, as you said). The same principle still does apply though: "the greatest power on the scene enforces his own judgement".

What is interesting, for its relevance to the thread, is part B of the quote: "a man of discernment and knowledge sustains it".

Saying that the hope for a nation is found in a man of discernment and knowledge, is saying that the deliverer is one who is able to recognise truth from error (Proverbs 29:12, 1 Kings 3:22-28), and who is equipped with facts.

It is implying that wisdom is the hope of deliverance during times of rebellion (Ecclesiastes 9:15), but specifically teaching us that his strength is the ability to discern (to recognise truth from deceit) and that knowledge is his vital equipment (because without facts, he cannot give examples for his reasons to persuade).

"Wisdom is better than weapons of war,
but one sinner destroys much good." Ecclesiastes 9:18

I said it as a hypothetical truth. Sometimes there is no greater power that is calling a power to account for their immorality. It still does not negate the opportunity for a power to do so, because ultimately, morality is a judgement of the rightness or wrongness of a power.

If we say that law is an expression of the society's moral values (which, sometimes are immoral laws), and the Police are the power, then the courts are responsible for interpreting law according to it's moral intention, in order to instruct whether Police should seize and enforce a penalty. If there ever is a disagreement about the intention of a law, it is the moral interpretation of law that prevails.

Moreso than that, morality is used as the frame by which each side makes it's case that the law should serve their interests. Nobody tries to persuade a judge that the immoral application of law should prevail if the judge is aware that he would be judging in favour of immorality. A judge is constrained firstly by law, and secondly by (his, or society's conscience toward) morality, to deliver a verdict that is in the interests of justice.

I have an old Oxford dictionary somewhere that defines justice as "the exercise of power for the maintenance of right". This dictionary says a similar thing:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice
"the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings:"

I think power is ultimately morally accountable, but only when there is a greater power that would hold them accountable. Thus, arrogance thrives in absence of justice.

Yes, I do think that the absolute truth is intrinsically constrained by morality, and that morality is what gives truth it's power. Therefore truth only has power where an authority is judging righteously.

I think the absolute truth must usually look toward the preservation of life as one of the highest values in judgement. So, in order for the predator era to shift to the prey era (interesting concepts btw!), the absolute truth would need to have a way for predators to sustain their life without slaying the prey (this is not new knowledge: Isaiah 11:6-9). Until that happens, there's always an argument from the lion "what else can I do?", that, presuming the lion was not sinning (for instance by greed, pride or wrath), prevents a righteous judge from giving preference to the prey's views to condemn the predator.

The objective view is most prone to bias because so much of it is made of interpretations. — frank

It is also least prone to bias because it's role is (supposedly) impartial in it's interpretation of facts. The subjects themselves are no less interpreting the truth than the objective judge is, but they are interested only in how the truth supports their own views.

A sheep says that it would never slay a human, and that a human does not need to slay the sheep. That is usually true except in exceptional circumstances. So when the human is rationalizing that truth in order to slay the sheep, he has to say that he will starve if the sheep is not slain, or that the sheep is not a conscious being that can possibly have that point of view.

But what does an objective judge say about it? (Ie: one who is not a sheep, and one who does not slay sheep). I think that is why vegans are so easily angered when they are opposed. Their judgments see that the truth supports the sheep in justice, while the sheep-slaying human is resorting to untruths to rationalise that injustice.

(You probably have experienced in your own way, how frustrating it is when someone is insisting that you are wrong, but they are refusing to acknowledge the truth.)

So, it drives the vegan mad, because they are also simultaneously pained by their empathy with the sheep that suffers injustice, and they, though being an impartial judge, are powerless to exercise justice.

Then, in their desperation for power to do justice, they have been known to implement untruth, as for example, thinking that the sheep-slayer knows he is doing injustice to the sheep, when in fact the sheep-slayer has not yet seen the truth according to the sheep's point of view.

So I have found from this, that power is distinct from truth, and that truth is only powerful when it is effective for conviction.

likely you know better than I the problems with this definition — tim wood

No, I don't see any problems with the definition. Could you explain the problems you see? Thank you.

I like the definition that says "truth is the quality or state of being true", and from the definition given here:

https://www.yourdictionary.com/truth

I would specify constraint 1(c) for the purpose of this thread: "the quality of being in accordance with experience, facts, or reality; conformity with fact".

Yes. Morality was N's preoccupation. The predator has one interpretation of events, the prey has another. Lacking a God's eye view, all we have are interpretations. Truth is only found in that divine perspectuve unavailable to us.

Yes? — frank

I don't think I can agree entirely with that, but I agree that essentially the objective view is least prone to bias. It doesn't mean to say that a predator is unable to recognise the views of the prey, and to do morality accordingly.. just that it's personal interests are more likely to pervert the justice that the prey is morally entitled to. (Eg, cats like to catch birds but they will respect the birds' moral rights if he knows his owner will condemn his immorality).

I also considered the example of a fly and a spider when somebody said "what is bliss to the spider is chaos to the fly".

So, it is true that the spider's web is bliss to the spider and chaos to the fly, but so far as objective truth goes, we ask "is the web bliss or chaos?" .. to which, the answer depends upon one's personal experience with it. If I am a spider, the web is bliss. If I am a fly, the web is chaos. That's the extent that truth can behave as evidence, so when we judge whether the web is to be condemned, we consider other factors - "is the web ultimately more valuable when it exists, or when it doesn't?".

Of course, the OP question is about the power of truth, so the fact is that a web exists, and if I am a fly, I will not like to be caught in it. So, whether truth is power, probably is a question more relevant wherever justice is being perverted through someone's misrepresenting of truth, as a claim to truth, for example.

Is there an example of the question existing when there is no disagreement about the truth?

The way I understand truth, is that it is a solid, robust, real thing. Then, because there can be different views (interpretations) of it, those views should not be contradictory.

Wherever there is contradicting views, therefore, there is some element of untruth - as, for example, one might desire to use his view of the truth that people are entitled to secure their nation by controlling who comes and goes, while another might use their view of the truth to say that people are entitled to go wherever in the world they may, while seeking a secure lifestyle. (To use a real, current event as an example). So they are both using the truth, but coming to have opposing views as to which view of the truth is ultimately more valuable.

If the world was a perfect world where nobody was thieving or murdering, then we would all agree which view of the truth is more valuable. But, since the world does have problems that produce a need for security, then a nation has to decide whether it's values of freedom to come and go are greater than the values of security.

Why would you imagine truth had power? — Isaac

This is the best angle of investigation.

There is something about the truth that makes people want to suppress it, oppose it, forge it, manipulate it, possess it etc. So it does appear to have some intrinsic power.

I think that power is only revealed when a judge (the one deciding the value of facts) honours the truth, and as such, people who misuse their power when truthfully they shouldn't, are choosing to exercise their power against the truth. The only reason they do that, is because they don't fear consequences of justice (because justice must operate according to the truth).

So there is also an element of morality that contributes to the power of truth, or where morality is insufficient, a moral authority is required in order to enforce moral rights according to the truth.

these people have no place in society if not taking their medications on time or have an emergency to the former due to some poor metabolism of some drug or medication. — Wallows

Psychiatry is an alternative discipline to spirituality, for treating people who are struggling with demonic assault. Psychiatry is a secular (non-religious) discipline, that does not understand spirituality; and as you have noted, it likes to cross the line from mere ignorance of the spiritual, to persecution of those who exercise it.

For thousands of years, religion has been understanding the human problem - what gives a spirit a hold over a mind, and how living righteously is a shield against a depraved mind. But in the present age (Matthew 12:45, Matthew 7:23), where thinking is depraved because it subjects itself to smut through media, the real knowledge of spirituality is difficult to find. So, most of the people who promote spirituality are nuts and legislators are naturally unwilling to yield the law into their hands. In contrast, the psychiatric institutions seem more level-headed, but only until you begin to question their reasoning. At that point, legislators are incapable of arguing against the confounding contortions of "expert knowledge" and words that "may have a different medical definition than their meaning in common language" - so they concur that the doctors are smarter than they are.

So I say a person who needs deliverance from evil spirits can only find it by following Jesus, and that Psychiatry is not able to cure people of those conditions. Psychiatry only prescribes medicine that reduces the problematic symptoms, but not understanding how it does so, and choosing to classify other regressions as acceptable and normal "side effects".

Sometimes a person can become cured while being treated by psychiatry - and that is because their thinking has been corrected. It is not medication that fixes a person's thinking, but words. Every word causes our mind to change, and if we follow the right words, our thinking is brought into the right way of thinking - but conversely, if we don't follow the right words, we are going in the opposite direction to right thinking, as likewise if we follow the wrong words. Jesus said "You have been made clean by the word I have spoken" (drawing a reference to the teaching as found in Matthew 12:43), and similarly Ephesians 5:26.

It's grounded in the very fabric of society that a person is quite essentially obedient. — Wallows

That's an authoritarian attitude. What happens when the authority is wrong and the people are expected to obey? (Yeah, it does happen). The community comes under a curse. Righteousness is the only defence, and that means that authorities must be opposed when they are exercising wrongness. What you find when authorities do get away with wickedness, is the opposite of what you described: malleable, coherent and stable. It is only righteousness that can produce those results, because righteousness is a defence against accusations according to the truth. The opposite requires deceit and corruption in order to defend it's workings.

Dogs can learn that though. I teach them the words "yucky" and "yummy". So when teaching a dog where to do his yuckies, I show him the poop and say "see this? .. it's yucky" then I throw it where it is ok (in the far corner) and say "you're a good boy when you do the yuckies over there" and "that's a good place for the yuckies". They understand that pretty quick. The longest it took for me to teach that to a dog, was about a week and a half.

one can show that no matter how hard a modern human would explain differential equations to a monkey it would never understand. Is there a way to point out that our mind type is capable of understanding any concept of any complexity given enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

I don't think the human mind is as capable as that, and I say that because I know I have understood things in the past that I have then forgotten and had to work again in order to understand again.

So when you ask about the extent of complexity that a mind can understand, that is one of the limiting factors - but it also can be exercised. Consider a chess player, for example. They have a huge realm of possibilities to consider, and yet it is like a drop in the ocean when compared to the realm of possibilities that one would be considering with regards to the reality of life on earth (and the pieces beyond).

Seriously, considering that the ruling of a nation is hierarchical and delegations are appointed for the purpose of abstracting the vastness of considerations to the upper levels, we cannot escape the reality that the human mind is limited - not only in it's knowledge (as time would assist), but also in it's scope of consideration (in computing terms, you might see the restriction similarly to having insufficient RAM to contain all the data necessary for processing a job at once - and combine that with an element of degradation found in the prior calculations when they are retrieved from the swap - as mentioned above).

Can specifically human mind understand the intentions of another abstract mind of unlimited thinking power, given human gets enough time? — IuriiVovchenko

That's quite a different question though! .. and an interesting one too! .. because we need to ask what level of understanding is necessary in order to say that the human mind has understood. For example, we know that children don't have as much understanding as grown-ups, but they are capable of understanding the grown-up's intentions sufficiently that it can be said that they understand. Yet, it might not be said that they understand the grown-up's intentions as well as the grown up does, but for the purposes, the grown up is satisfied that they understand sufficiently as also the child is satisfied.

In the bible we find examples of that, where God is saying that a human can never reach His level (Isaiah 55:9, Isaiah 27:4), yet also finding that there is a level of understanding that is sufficient (Psalms 95:10, John 5:24, 1 John 3:21).

so why can't you do as other do, even if takes greater reflection on your part? — Hanover

.. I'd like to say something about this. When a person is being mean and nasty, they are transgressing the ultimate law of morality: "do unto others as you would have them do to you", and we know that when people are found to give amusing responses, they become targets for those who goad.

So it seems that his tendency to lean on the Austistic diagnosis is attracting meanness and nastiness from those who find it amusing (and I'm only reflecting what has already been found in this thread). So then, the problem with expecting him to let it be, is that you are taking sides with the ones who are being mean and nasty - and your attitude toward him is that he should forfeit any expectation of justice.

That means you are expecting him to tolerate injustice, immorality and meanness - and such oppression drives a righteous person mad (which is again, rather rewarding to the one goading, who sits comfortable beyond his reach - Proverbs 29:27).

Christianity is an example of a Canaanite religion: scapegoating the sins of humanity onto a single man while "believers" "believe" their sins are paid for already. — A Gnostic Agnostic

That's the "penal substitution atonement" doctrine, which is widespread and most popular in Christianity, but essentially based on a mischaracterisation of God's character (1 John 4:16, 1 John 4:18, 1 Corinthians 13:5-6, Proverbs 17:15, Isaiah 59:7). So I don't like to call it a Christian teaching.

People who believe that doctrine are unable to reconcile certain logical problems, and unable to read the scriptures without prejudice (because the scriptures do not say what they have been programmed to see them as saying). It's the reasoning of a fallen mind that thinks in terms of indebtedness (and there's a lot of people claiming to be Christian who are of the fallen mind, who do not know what godliness is, just as Jesus was saying of the religious teachers in His time - consider what Jesus was saying about this through Luke 19:14 and Matthew 12:43-45 "So it will be for this evil generation").

I'd quite like to show you more, but it is off-topic for this thread, so I only mentioned it FYI. It's something that you can look into, as you say you are focused on the philosophy of the human problem. It's one of those heresies that 2 Peter 2:2 points to. (Eg. Luke 5:20 and Luke 7:47 show that blood is not necessary for forgiveness of sins).

Neither the past nor the future exist. All that exists, exists in "the now", and the now is the present reality. Everything that ever happens, happens in that moment.

The types of things that exist in the present moment, are spirit and matter: matter being the physical things, like computers and cameras, while the spirit is a way of thinking that directs the matter and seeks to propagate it's momentum, spreading from one mind to another.

So, because the past is only an abstract concept of a moment that has already happened and it doesn't actually exist, all things that exist are things in the present moment that have arrived to be with us as a result of the past.

For example, you have mentioned memories. What is a memory? It is a way of thinking in the imagination. The imagination might not be wrong to remember a memory, because it is re-imagining what the eyes, ears and mind actually did comprehend. But the future is different, because when we imagine what will happen in the future, we cannot be relying upon anything but a speculation, a promise or a calculation.

Therefore, naturally we do not allow future events to be used as facts, while we do accept the imaginations of witnesses as fact, (if in the present moment, the judge believes the witness' testimony to be reliable).

Other artifacts of the past that exist to remind us in the present, are objects, photographs, recordings, rubble, fossils etc.

But in absence of all rubble and photographs, and without anyone to give testimony to the past, we would really have no idea. The past would have literally disappeared. So in reality, the past doesn't exist at all, just it's echoing in the present by way of artifacts, and it is upon the facts of the past that we qualify our rights in the present.

The future on the other hand, is a coming moment. The things we do now contribute to a chain of events that, with skill and notwithstanding coordination of events beyond our control, we can contribute toward creating a specific situation when the present moment arrives at that place on the timeline.

It is the one thing that you own but that belongs solely to the mother of your children.

When we begin asking questions about religious matters, we are really asking for the truth in the name of the highest authority. So what happens when we find the answer? We either have to accept it or reject it. What happens in that moment, unbeknown to us, is that we choose to follow the spirit of truth or the spirit of a deceiver. The path we choose, the spirit we yield ourselves to, continues to take our thoughts into a direction of greater understanding (to it's respective objectives). That is why you see so much hypocrisy among Christians where they have believed false doctrines - the false doctrine does not come from the spirit of truth, and when they think that way, they behave according to what they have been led to think is appropriate. The same happens for people who aren't religious, btw. So eventually you see them end up being deplorable, as @Hanover mentioned here.

The only real problem is that people actually engage with them, rather than allowing them to dry up and disappear as they naturally should. (What that means is that the noble people are giving their strength to the reprobrates). I could offer you Proverbs 26:4-5 to consider.

It's hard to infer a consistent image of God from the Bible as God of New and Old Testament seem to differ quite a lot. What I see though as a major difference is God's infallibility. No matter what challenges at hand, he just has this inbuilt resilience that rules out any mistake on his part. Humans, on the other hand, are like poor quality end product, constantly suffering from failures. If God designed us to be like him, then it seems he failed miserably. — enqramot

So, what is the critical difference? It is wisdom, and what is essential to wisdom? Knowledge, understanding (discernment) and authority. Humans are finite, being mortal. We have a beginning point of zero knowledge, gaining our knowledge from those more established, and as we grow in knowledge, we take a role of disseminating that knowledge to the coming generations. So the human problem is a systemic corruption that distorts and displaces the innate human nature before we come to have sufficient independence and authority to direct our own will.

On the other hand, God is the opposite, that as being the one who, in the beginning, said "let there be" (and so it was).

And yet he's supposed to be perfect. It just doesn't add up. How could a perfect god create such obviously imperfect world unless on purpose, but what on earth could that purpose be and how could it be any good?? — enqramot

You have to keep in mind that this world that we have is not exactly the world that God created or that God desires (consider Genesis 6:6 as compared to Genesis 1:31 and Romans 8:20-21, especially noting that God subjected creation to futility "not willingly" - God was not willing for creation to go that way. So He has chosen suffering, in hope).

How has this idea of God being perfect even cropped up? — enqramot

I think it is an extension of the principle in Proverbs 21:30, and a natural outcome of a servile mind when forced by their insecurity, to claim authority by association. What I said does not negate the possibility of it's truth though, as even Hebrews 10:14 forces us to look carefully at what people say. "What is perfection?".

Also people come with different abilities, let's call them talents. You can have singing talent, you can have beyond average ability to avoid paths in life which put you out of sync with the godly way of life prescribed by Jesus, which is also some kind of talent. Uneven distribution of such "talents" is unfair. So how can God be perfectly just? — enqramot

Only by employing circumstantial relativity in His judgement. We are not all God's workmanship, because there are many people who contribute to our growth in a way that is not conducive to God's intentions (Ephesians 2:2-3).

If you find Christians who don't reflect the fair nature of justice, be mindful that they probably do not represent God in the proper spirit (eg: Luke 12:47-48, Matthew 7:21-23).

Rather than humans made in the image of God, I think it's Bible's God being a distorted image of humans resulting from limitations in imagination department that Bible's authors, being merely humans, suffered from. — enqramot

I'm more inclined to blame the translators, as the authors of the bibles you read, because of the large misrepresentation of the scriptures coming through English translations. But in saying that, yes I agree that we (not to point at the bible writers but the characters in it) are constantly facing, and sometimes falling foul of, the tactics of the deceiver (Revelation 12:9a(ii), John 10:10), who is an imposter (1 John 4:3b-c)), who takes captives through judgement of their failures to love the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).

I fail to see how humans are possibly 'made in the image of God'. — enqramot

I'd like to understand that better, in case I might have wrongly assumed why. Could you please explain?

Where are the similarities? — enqramot

I admit that I have extrapolated the image as a character rather than a role, and the godly character is not found so often except in children (because of the transpiration and infiltration of the corrupted (fallen) human thinking that displaces the godly nature, and the liberties to do iniquity that come with age). Yet, we can see that sometimes there comes a person who knows how to explain godliness in a way that makes sense, because they are absolutely right and able to say it, and if people would learn from them, they would become restored into the character that God intended. It is that restored character that I have said is the natural state of a human (IE: what a human is when they are not of a sinful spirit).

So Jesus Christ is well accepted as the perfect example of that kind of teacher, and I think what He said in Luke 6:35-38 is quite relevant to this:

“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great and you will be sons of Elyon, for He is kind to the ungrateful and evil ones. Be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate to you.”

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Pardon, and you will be pardoned. Give, and it will be given to you—a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, overflowing, will be given into your lap. For whatever measure you measure out will be measured back to you.”

There is a difference between mistake and sin. People can make mistakes while being blameless, and so they are entitled to mercy (but I reflect true justice, not the idea of justice that the children of wrath promote - which is "punishment until I am satisfied that you have paid for my grievance").

Sin is therefore, not simply "missing the mark", but "doing what you know you shouldn't do". But there is another complication to that definition, because sin is by definition, a thing that we choose to do instead of doing love. Love and sin are mutually exclusive, so that a person who is acting of love cannot be doing sin, and a person who is acting of sin is not doing love.

When I came to learn of the Seven Deadly Sins, the Wikipedia page had stated "according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a mortal, or deadly sin, is believed to destroy the life of grace and charity within a person". It occurred to me, that a human in their natural state of being without sin (ie: made in the image of God), they have charity and grace. Sin is those things that draw us away from being charitable and being gracious. Greed, pride, lust, envy - whenever we are acting that way, we are not willing to give others what they deserve, whether it be kindness or help. Sloth, gluttony wrath. That's seven categorisations of harmful human behaviour. But they are only useful for analysing a person's sinfulness. It doesn't identify what is specifically giving sin a power over the person's life, and that could be drinking or unmarried sex, or pornography etc. Everyone who is not sanctified has a single crux - that one thing that is keeping them in bondage to the darkness, so that they can't truly express the truth of what is right.

Such persons might be right about a lot of things, but whenever the topic moves toward their weakness, they become intellectually dishonest, evading the path of reasoning that would lead to a realisation and confession of their wrong. They are "walking in the darkness" as 1 John 1:6 puts it.

So, a person who is innocent and not enslaved by sin (eg: a young child), they make mistakes and yet they aren't ashamed. The difference comes when they know that what they are about to do is wrong, and they do it, then they begin walking in the darkness to hide what they have done. It's the same with grown-ups and their relationship to God, and as Jesus speaks to us in a divine way, John 3:36 says that someone who is not doing what The Holy Spirit expects of them, then suffers the wrath of God (that is why they get all worked up when we speak His words, feeling condemned even though we aren't condemning them - Romans 8:1, Romans 8:34).

For example, if taking the meanings of the Hebrew letters as (I can explain how these meanings are derived if important enough):

shin - expression (psychology/emotions/instinct)
tet - bind
nun (final) - ongoing state — A Gnostic Agnostic

I'd like to know how you have found those meanings. I find a lot of value in the pictographs (according to this chart), and what I see in this, the one "consuming the lot of seed" - so the satan is a destroyer, the one bringing the end of all chance that life has to grow.

What is ones definition of "infidel"? — A Gnostic Agnostic

I think of the word as deriving from "fidelity" - which is "replication true to the original". So an infidel is someone who has not replicated the original [faith] accurately. They have distorted the faith, they are corrupting the faith.

People are habitual creatures, because habits help us to reduce effort for repetitive, mundane tasks. But it is when a person grows to depart from the love of the truth that they develop an erroneous spirit, and that propensity to do error is what you are finding difficult to deal with.

The majority of people of independence have had their love of truth subdued by complacency, extinguished by crueleness, or have just given up hope; so it pains or disinterests them to think much about the accuracy of their beliefs. Being content in their state of a simpler life, they do not look beyond the rhetoric of the expressions they use, and what's more, that you have battled with, is that they don't like to be exposed for it (because doing so is exposing their nakedness).

Most people think it is kind to not make a person aware of their shamefulness, because equally, most people can't really do it well. It requires grace, compassion and mercy to bring a person into awareness of their shamefulness in a way that can help them to cover themselves with honour. So if you find that they are not appreciating your observations, keep in mind that it probably isn't because you are wrong as they say, but because they don't want to be exposed and brought to see their shame while they are powerless to be clothed in dignity.

So, taking comfort in the knowledge that most people would have turned a blind eye (if they had even seen it), they are emboldened to say that you are not doing what is normal. So, normal and correct are quite often at odds, because of the social conventions on account of the currents flowing in the direction of opposition to truth - and that is because truth demands repentance, but can you tell me honestly who on earth really wants to repent? (I ask, not just rhetorically, but because it is they who have the wholeness of the human nature and it is only such types who can bring paradise on earth).

A nice person will write for the reader's benefit, and that means to write as simply as possible. A person who complicates their language is, of pride, seeking the reader's approval. One has transcended all power that criticism has, while the other is still enslaved to their personal insecurities. Another observation is the transcended one shares selflessly for the other's benefit (doing love), while the other shares self-servingly, to inflate their ego at the expense of the reader's humiliation (sin). So sin and love are opposite motives in speech, having opposite effects: love heals and delivers freedom, while prideful knowledge does harm, to intimidate or provoke fear, or defensiveness and contention, that propagates insecurity.

It is beautiful poetry, deeply inspiring, and I love the grace of your spirit as you write, but you would be stronger if you were anchored rather than drifting. You drift, wondering, because you haven't quite grasped what God is saying through the bible. So that is a crucial piece missing in your faith that would empower Him as He speaks through you (for: God is love, whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him 1 John 4:16). When we read you, we read a corresponding uncertainty through your views, that doesn't serve well to inspire hope in others, especially so far as understanding how a final victory is to be won. And as 1 Corinthians 13:7 calls us to consider the qualities of love: "it hopes, trusts, bears and endures all things", the sum of your poetry gives a different sense of hope than what He says to me elsewhere (Matthew 10:27), owed to His greater knowledge of all things and creative ability.

No less now that I have said so, I enjoyed your thinking and the craft of your beautiful poetry! :)

.. and I would like add thoughts WRT this:

there can be no blame for not knowing what can’t be shown for sure — PoeticUniverse

.. sure, blame is pointless, whether it is available or not - but you are really promoting a catch-22 when you speak this way. Whoever trusting and believing, offering their prayer of love in faith, will get to see. "Ask for anything in my name, without doubting, and it shall be done for you". The doubt does not come from God, because Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things?"

You are on target by focusing on this issue :up: I hope you have every success to find how Christianity can be reconciled with the obvious truths, that you see are at odds with a doctrine that has become a common, widespread error.

For your consideration while you are going there, your third paragraph contains a clue: that the Jews have an advantage over the English speakers.

When I came to question what you are questioning, I found that the ones who have believed the view you are objecting to, are forced to misread scriptures in order to sustain their view (consider 2 Peter 3:16c).

Some translations have even gone so far as to take the liberty to completely change what the bible says, because the translators genuinely are unable to see that what they are reading can mean any other thing. Amusingly, by choosing to go so far as to change the words, they reveal a genuine contention that the original words are somewhat misleading, and that if they had written what is written in the bible, they would have chosen different words to say it. So of course, seeing they are at liberty to write their own words in the bible, that is exactly what they do, thinking that they are doing a service to God.

So that is what we are wrestling with. Two thousand years of it (and more, as Jesus also remarked: Mark 7:9).

Here are a few things you will find as you keep pressing into the matter:

• There is no scripture saying that we are born with "inherited sin", but to the contrary you will find scriptures saying in various ways, that it is the sin in the world that spreads upon all, and when that sin takes hold (James 1:14-15), then it is only through receiving the life-giving words from God that we can be restored. "Born again".
• God does not require blood in order to be able to forgive (Luke 7:48-50), and you will find to that effect, that a question must be asked in respect of Mark 10:45: because Jesus' life was given as a ransom, who is it that demanded the payment? (ie: God, man or the devil?). The false doctrine teaches that God demanded the life of Jesus as payment for sin, but the scriptures don't say that (Matthew 7:25).
• Romans 7:9 talks about a spiritual life in the same way that John 5:24 and 1 John 3:14 do, but Romans 7:9 is obviously teaching that he had spiritual life to begin with, even before he came to know the Torah (the knowledge of sin). What Romans 7:9 says, simply does not fit with the objectionable theme of the error, and typically you find that it is the one which they will most struggle to read accurately and to explain.

If you can get through it, this is a letter I wrote to someone who, owed to my having discussed differences over this very doctrine with his subordinate, and his having taken sides with that subordinate without hearing my own words, excluded my welcome and then declined my requests for his hearing. So I wrote this letter to him, hoping it might be useful. You'd probably gain a few things from it to go with what you are already bringing forth.