There is no system of thought you can completely shelter from absurdity. Hume was just saying anything is possible. I prefer to think of and focus my intuition on probabilities instead of trying to find certain knowledge of where we get our knowledge. All long as your grounded in reality you can live with doubts. Good thread though

Is Heidegger saying we experience time backwards? The quantum eraser experiment comes to mind

Christians say that matter is an imperfection. Take away breath, width, and length and it is more perfect If it has a nature. So they say. I like matter. I like girls' bodies, Christmas trees, ect. Prove simplicity is possible and then prove it is superior to your body

Satan is a force, not a person

we shouldn’t know about history merely by etymology, — xinye

All fields of study about ancient cultures' beliefs are based on etymology. If you don't know the language you can't know what they knew. Language passes through history, so you have travel that path, day by day, back to 33A.D. in order to truly know what happened. It's far back in history, language changes every decade. Persona meant mask originally. Now it means personhood. Sophia meant wisdom, but the Sophists were not wise.

And he has been known as a Saint for more than a thousand years. That's a win to me. — Gus Lamarch

By Satanists

I don’t think you would say that “striving” is the only form of action, — Emma

It is the only form of virtuous act. You can't excuse a being from this by saying he already has it without him doing it.

From what I understand based on my friends and family who are catholoic and/or have attended Catholic schools, communion is regarded as a metaphorical action, no one is intending to eat the flesh of a human being. — Emma

False. The Council of Trent clearly defined what the Eucharist and Mass are. It's in the Catechism. It's everywhere. They believe they eat Jesus

he Christian God did not command murder in the New Testament , Christianity is not pro-murder. — Emma

He never said he wouldn't do it. I've asked Christians and they always say they would kill someone if God commanded it

Finally, your paragraph regarding guilt and repentance seems odd to me. First of all, from my understanding, karma is a part of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Christianity so it doesn’t seem relevant to this particular conversation. Secondly, you use “guilt” in two different ways. The first time you use it, it seems to be referring to someone being guilty of something versus the second time you use it, it seems that you’re using guilt as a sort of emotion we humans feel when we do something wrong. Regarding the latter definition, Jesus’s sacrifice was not to help Christians feel less guilty or shameful, it was to free Christians from eternal damnation. I am not quite sure what your argument is trying to accomplish, but many parts of it seem incorrect.
Thanks for your time! — Emma

You're making distinctions that only distract from the truth

saint Augustine converted to Christianity — Gus Lamarch

"Saint" Augustine was a self-worshipper who said babies burn in hell. And if you don't know well know verses of the Bible that is not my fault. You chose a 6 instead of a 7 and want Jesus now to bail you out

Conflating outcome and intent is a conspiracy theorist play. — Kenosha Kid

I said that was their intent. You can't prove otherwise

There is no probability for an "event" that allegedly happen 2000 years ago. Therefore there is no "most reasonable" way of looking at it. Check through the "Lists of Religions" on Wikipedia. They all have claims. It does not matter if you have a handful of documents saying the same thing. They are all religious works written by a cult involving many people. They worked together. That is what makes the most sense, considering how awful Christian doctrine is. Even the claim that the writers died for the belief in Jesus comes from those religious text.

Loving someone not of this world is not virtuous and worshiping any conscious being is idolatry.

Are you seriously proposing that Jesus was revived not by the divine grace of God the Father, but by Satan — Gus Lamarch

If I am not mistaken, you said earlier you didn't believe in God. If you want Christianity to win over Islam but are willing to be Muslim if you have too, it seems you believe based on your emotions. Which you are claiming I am doing

how much of a stupid person I am — Gus Lamarch

I don't think your stupid. You are capable of having a conversation. I just have studied this matters in depth for many years

I do believe what I want. But what I want is good. Piety is not a virtue. Are there indications Jesus was evil? Yes. He said you had to hate your family in order to be his disciple. He said he came to bring violence

Are you seriously proposing that Jesus was revived not by the divine grace of God the Father, but by Satan for some reason that even you can't argue in favor of? If so, please, share you "hypothesis" - whatever this word means at this point - with us, because I'm really, very curious about it - in truth, not so much in the "hypothesis" itself but more on how you'll articulate and distort christian theology to make it agree with you. — Gus Lamarch

We don't know enough about Jesus to say anything definite. He could have been a black magician whom the devil raised from the dead and who deceived everyone in think he was God, had died for them, and should be worshipped as equal to anything divine and above all creation

Since language changes every generation, it is impossible to know for sure if the Bible is properly translated. Yes, the whole foundation of Christianity is sand.Maybe God doesn't want us looking for signs. Muslims attribute most miracles to the Evil One, and so reject the Bible as non-canonical. Maybe the planet Saturn causes miracles. In dealing with the New Testament, we have to not only keep in mind that even the Illiad has miracles and gods in it, but also ask (1) what were the motives of those writing these books, and (2)did they get the facts right.

Prophecy has to be unpredictable, highly unlikely, not deliberately fulfillable, and certainly written earlier than the event. This is not the case with the Jesus figure

So it's reasonable to wonder if the writers of the NT embellished on rumors from 40 years prior.

Again, there are miracles in every religion probably in history.

Religion has been proven to be a drug. If mushrooms are discovered to have been plentiful in Galilee
in the first century, the game is over

The world has all the reality it needs in order to exist. It came from potentiality, quantum uncertainty, and an infinite vagueness that cannot be put into words. Through gravity, perhaps, it leaped into actuality and finitude

Jews would say I am correct

Also I don’t see the relevance for the part in which you’re saying that we have no way of knowing if Luke, Mark or Paul were real apostles who could write the Scripture. I assume you consider this to be a loophole in the Bible because you’re suggesting that if they were not real apostles, they wouldn’t have traveled along with Jesus, which could then put the truthfulness of Jesus’s deeds, also the truthfulness of the very Scripture in doubt. However, what I’m trying to make here is that it doesn’t put the Scripture or Jesus in doubt, for 1)It’s very not likely that the Apostles are not real apostles — if you read the Scripture you’ll find that Peter writes incessantly about Paul and vice versa, and 2)It doesn’t matter even if they are not because Bible isn’t the only document where Jesus is recorded, Jesus is a real character whose deeds and life stories were attested by many historians. — xinye

Several points:

1) etymology is not a real science, so everything about ancient history is doubtful

2) The original 12 Apostles alone, it can be argued, were given authority to write Scripture. So if something is not written in the new Testament by them, a Christian can quite possibly reject it. Peter could have been wrong about Paul. So a lot of the new Testament can not be proven to be Scripture, unless you are a Catholic I guess

3) Christian historians are obviously influence by their faith when they read about miracles from other religions. If we have a bunch of miracles, it is a reasonable position to say they are all forged from imagination. This might not be the only position one can take. But the evidence is NOT strong for the Christian position. There is simply no way to prove from history that Jesus was God


4) The Christian God is said to be not contingent but necessary. Therefore He wills the Good necessary. But He is said to be free as well. Therefore He wills the Good necessarily and freely. This may be possible in a supernatural (imaginary) being, but still I see no room left in God for Him choosing (within His nature) the Good in the face of pain and suffering. Therefore man has the ability to be greater than God. All this shows is that the Christian God is an impossibility. He never existed and never will. The Atonement (taking people's guilt and putting it on a innocent person) is just another nail in the coffin

Yeah, we're dastardly like that. I have a question... Why do people who think that Jews are super-organised and super-villianous always announce themselves? Aren't you at all worried I might tell the rest of the Jews that you're onto us? I mean, if we brought down Rome, imagine what we're doing with today's technology. It's almost like you have to be stupid to think this stuff. — Kenosha Kid

It's not about Jews in particular. Religious documents, like the Book of Mormons for example, were written in order to take over a region of people

It is a matter of possibility, and the probability is something to be deduced later. I think that the defense of miracles, specifically the Resurrection, rests on the acceptance that they are possible, but highly improbable, events, but that after considering the evidence and alternative theories, one can reasonably conclude that a miraculous event is the best option. This same framework should be applied to any miracle claim, and often is to dismiss claims where: no one else witnessed it or it was not attested by other sources. It seems that this argument really only emphasizes the need for investigating these claims carefully, not to dismiss them. Let me know what you think! — DPKING

Christians accept the Bible because they believe it is a historical document. They don't see miracles as anything unusual. However!, if you point out all the many miraculous claims in other faiths and cultures, they are put in a dilemma. Either they are to accept all this miracles, or reject miracle claims as improbable. Now they might say the devil performs miracles. But I see no reason to believe that Jesus was not from the devil. He cast out demons? Yes, but could he not do it while being in cohort with Satan himself? Could not they have been fooling people? Could not Satan have given Jesus his soul back after he died??

I'm arguing this from a Christian perspective. The reasonable thing to do is to doubt miracle claims in general, regardless if we have several documents from the 1st century speaking of a single event like this.

Thank you

In continuing my reading of B&T, I have come across 3 passages that illuminate some of my posts.

"The being that is disclosed is that of a being that is concerned about its being. The meaning of this being- that is, care- is what makes care possible in its constitution, and it is what makes up primordially the being of this potentiality of being."

" future does not mean a now that has not yet come, but a coming in which Dasein comes toward itself in its ownmost potentiality -of-being. "

In a footnote in my translation "existential project and existential self-engagement projecting itself itself into that project go together."

Every thing is moving for Heidegger, even truth

All a person has to do to take away guilt is do a good act equal to the crime committed. The scales balance. If you are incapable of that, all I can say is that the universe is not a theist God so maybe it has mercy in ways we don't know. But I doubt this. Karma seems to be the absolute rule. So do good, sure, but why believe in a God who violates justice in order to save people who Christian say have an infinite debt? You're believing in something obviously wrong in order to save your skin; that's why they call it faith

I would follow a Christian church that did not believe Jesus takes your sins, but which believes Jesus gives helping Grace

It doesnt matter of its working. Karma gets everyone "I.can't take away my own sin but Jesus can" says the Christian. That's straight up sinful

The world is conscience related. That's why we are here. Atonment does away with conscience and that is why they eat Jesus

It's all part of a system that is not spiritually grown-up. Take responsibility for your actions. Dont put it on Jesus. The fact that Christianity makes you nerdy and sensitive such that they get giddy when its disscover something like rock music is not a sin ( "Jesus can rock? COOL!" ) is enough. People obsessed with sin and punishment are like people in trenches: God is obvious to them. It's not to me and Job sucks

Blah to all-powerful supernatural beings. The world could have come from a timeless computer which creates the wave functions. I have no need for a father figure in the sky and never will understand it. It's immature of you to rely on the compassion of the supernatural

And yes, Jesus never ordered his apostles to kill people, as it is related in the Bible. But Jesus might have killed people and the Christian Jesus reserves the right to order his followers to slaughter whom he desires. Christians have always believed this. Psalms says to "take the little ones and dash them against the rocks". It's supposed to make you happy

I'm not sure Satan exists. Saying "disbelieving in Satan is his (satan's) greatest trick" is not a technical argument. I think people in the West have emotional attachments to Christianity, even though it contains elements which, if they first encountered them in another religions and region, would consider "devil worship". That was my thesis for this thread. People hard tried to make it sound loopy but its not.

The new Testament says God works on the Sabbath. If there is a God, he would have to work. You can't excuse God from effort and say he lives and loved in eternal bliss and happiness. A man who atrives for good (" good Samaritan "?) would be getter than his creator if his God never felt pain. Now saying God feels pain presents some philosophical difficulties as pointed out by Edward Feser and others. (see his videos against theistic personalism) So Christianity can be tricked around until it no longer have evil elements, but it would have to reject much of it's tradition (with a small t)

The

Does Heidegger agree that time is linear?

Maybe "god" is an infinite computer. Positing a person out there explains nothing. Only a fool says there is a god

Epigraph 64 "Care already contains the phenomenon of self, if indeed the thesis is correct that the expression 'care for yourself' would be tautalogical if it were proposed in conformity with concern as care for others."

I don't think this sentence makes much sense, but indicates my hunch was right that "care" is connected with the sum of reality caring for us somehow

I have the Joan Stambaugh translation. It has a number on the side of the page every few paragraphs. I thought these were the original paragraphs. My apology

You're whole thesis assumes that stability real. Hegel took Heraclitus seriously but you are not. If your premise is "something must remain stable and we call that matter" , I take the whole premise and nail it from the nearest tree

It seems antimony or contradictions exists in us and our world, according to Kant. So Kant came up with this realization hundreds of years before the Godel, Escher, Bach book! TIme might be loopy, reality certainly is. The problem with Kant is that you psychologically feel like your field of vision encompasses all reality. To cure this by pointing out that being is distorted if the behind thou is forgotten in the face of the ahead is to say and point out a truth about Time

I also want to quickly add, moreover, that in paragraph 314 Heidegger makes a distinction between "reality and existence" . Reality is the world positivists experience. Existence is the world mystics experience, and it is this road which philosophy truly follows and through which it can understand time. "Care" in B&T might literally relate to the feeling of caring. The universe is our mother and to lose our Egos is to find to be cared about. Maybe we have several egos..

I think Heidegger was presenting in his work an alternative to Hegel's attempt to break free from Kant. Ontic for me means Kants disconnection from the world, and ontology is the study of the true world ( "noumena" ?)

And what would the fullness of being look like?

Paragraph 313 in Being and Time says: "Has being-in-the-world a higher instance of its potentuality-of-being than its own death?" ( it's even italicized in the book)

So he asks if there is more "being" in death or in life. Therefore there can be more or less being

Heidegger did "violence" to historical texts because he was very aggressive . His results are interesting

Good observations. Heidegger considers being to be a single thing: existence. From his Scholastic training he learned that different objects have being more or less. The "more or less" is the issue. I was wondering if a beautiful painting has more existence than an ugly one, and whether songs as they are being sung have any being

They assume that the absurd does not have the ability to be. they assume the hotel is absurs