You are pretending you don't reveal in the screams of the burglar.

The impact of your morality on others is ignored. You will not admit the quoted passage to which you objected to so strongly describes you inflicting suffering and death on the burglar.

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.

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.

The point isn't shame. I'm not saying God/Christianity is immoral. That's a different argument.

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.

So for someone who has the end of human weakness in mind, Christianity isn't a beacon of hope. If they were to hope for Christianity, they would literally be a dishwasher requesting a soap that could only clean a particular subset of dishes that were meant to be clean. The point is there is a profound mismatch between what Christian likes to claim about itself ("the saviour of man" ) and what it actually amounts to (really, it is only the saviour of Christians ).

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.

Maybe I am wrong but perphaps willowofdarkeness is indirectly answering to Agustino's other thread where he made the point that human weakness is a good argument for the existence of the Christian God? Though this is just a wild shot, since I stopped following what was argued in that thread quite early on.

It's absolutely the failure of unbelievers, but that's the problem. — TheWillowOfDarkness

With respect to the question you asked in your other thread, a successful solution to human weakness would remove the failure of the unbeliever. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If you have a pill that treats a certain disease, but some people who have the disease refuse to take the pill, then it is not the pill's failure to treat the illness.

You are pretending you don't reveal in the screams of the burglar. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, I don't revel in it, I would just do it because it has to be done. Not because of sadism - as Nietzsche implies in his quote - but rather out of love for my wife.

You will not admit the quoted passage to which you objected to so strongly describes you inflicting suffering and death on the burglar. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it doesn't, that passage describes a sadist, because what makes him great is his lack of regard for the suffering he causes. In my case, what makes my action great is my love for my wife and my desire to protect her, whatever it takes.

For sure, but that only shows the failure of the pill as a solution. It couldn't also save those who would refuse to take it. If we are to advocate and hope for the pill as a solution, it means accepting the weakness of those who will refuse it. Our enemy is not human weakness, but rather just human weakness of those would take the pill.

The point is, to the question of overcoming human weakness, Christianity is a failed cure. It desires and advocates for the weakness of unbelievers. It may be true and even just, but it is still an abject disaster at overcoming human weakness. It's incapable of helping the unbeliever.

So in the context of human weakness, say of the horror of death and anything terrible that comes afterwards, Christianity is both ineffective and amounts to a tragedy. It both advocates and is no solution to their human weakness. For all the Christian speaks of forgiveness and the overcoming of human weakness, they cannot extend it to unbelievers. If someone's goal is merely a solution to human weakness, Christianity is not attractive nor particular hopeful. There are countless other possible ways existence might go which would be better at overcoming human weakness.

If someone wanted a solution to human weakness (as opposed to merely the weakness of Christians), Christianity would be one of the first positions rejected. It is an advocate of human weakness.

No, I don't revel in it, I would just do it because it has to be done. Not because of sadism - as Nietzsche implies in his quote - but rather out of love for my wife.

No it doesn't, that passage describes a sadist, because what makes him great is his lack of regard for the suffering he causes. In my case, what makes my action great is my love for my wife and my desire to protect her, whatever it takes. — Agustino

Nietzsche's point is that is a far greater revealing in the given cruelty than any sadist. The sadist only revels in terms of what he wants or how he feels. In terms of sadism itself, there is the possibility of rejecting the given cruelty, for even the sadist to say: "Well, even if I want to be cruel or it would feel really good, now is not the time...".

For the sadist qua sadism, there is the possibility of denying the cruelty in favour of a cruelty of self-denial because the later is moral and the former immoral.

Morality cannot take such prisoners. You can only do whatever it takes to protect your wife. If your wife is in danger, there is no option to refrain from cruelty. You must act, no matter how much cruelty is involved or how much you would prefer it to be otherwise. In the act of obtaining a moral outcome, no quarter can be given.

Your greatness and cruelty are one the same. Had you hesitated, had you not enacted the cruelty to the the attacker to protect your wife, she would be dead and you would be a moral failure.