Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Fido wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Col 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.


Obligations are ours, and consequences are God's. Thomas J. 'Stonewall' Jackson.

If Jesus were not considered God, he would be the West's greatest philosopher. He was always rational, defeated Roman paganism, and Jewish legalism, and he would still be effective were it not for the bad examples set by his followers, and, for the fact that all universally reject the existence of God, and so dismiss Jesus. Paul made the victory of Jesus over the Romans certain, but made certain the organization would triumph over the man Jesus was. If Jesus was God he gave nothing by death since he was immortal. Jesus suffered unto death, and that suffering was prophetic, but unremarkable unless he was human, and had only one life to lay down. It is a true generosity to give what you have no second one of.

Which brings me back to the subject. We tend to look on life as intangible. That is why a question as to the meaning of life draws so many responses. What many people fail to consider is that even while the nature of life is obscure, and while the lives of others seem intangible; to each and every one, their life is the one tangible reality, and it is through that reality that all things are viewed.

You see the thing is, that is the weakness of philosophy.

It tend to lead one to have a solipsistic view point. And that is a false reality.

Y'shua showed the philosophers that selflessness is far more potent a force in the universe than selfishness is.

Paul did a pretty darn good job at that, as well.

[Howe]

Intangibles definitely exist. They do not occupy space - only the substances involved in "memorializing" them do (alluding to the prior remarks about electrons and chemicals in the brain... and documents and other recordings, too).

Is there any reason why something needs to occupy space to exist? Existence is a concept. It is "recognition by a being." So, even without humans, I am sure dogs recognize happiness, fear, hunger, etc.

[thefranzkafkafront]

cap'n queasy wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Col 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.


Go back to your forum theology boy.

:lol: I'd rather stay and poke holes in sophistry masquerading as intelligent thought. And you don't have what it takes to make me go away.

Dude common the 'PAUL SEZ SO' argument is a bit poo.

[Fido]

cap'n queasy wrote: Fido wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Col 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.


Obligations are ours, and consequences are God's. Thomas J. 'Stonewall' Jackson.

If Jesus were not considered God, he would be the West's greatest philosopher. He was always rational, defeated Roman paganism, and Jewish legalism, and he would still be effective were it not for the bad examples set by his followers, and, for the fact that all universally reject the existence of God, and so dismiss Jesus. Paul made the victory of Jesus over the Romans certain, but made certain the organization would triumph over the man Jesus was. If Jesus was God he gave nothing by death since he was immortal. Jesus suffered unto death, and that suffering was prophetic, but unremarkable unless he was human, and had only one life to lay down. It is a true generosity to give what you have no second one of.

Which brings me back to the subject. We tend to look on life as intangible. That is why a question as to the meaning of life draws so many responses. What many people fail to consider is that even while the nature of life is obscure, and while the lives of others seem intangible; to each and every one, their life is the one tangible reality, and it is through that reality that all things are viewed.

You see the thing is, that is the weakness of philosophy.

It tend to lead one to have a solipsistic view point. And that is a false reality.

Y'shua showed the philosophers that selflessness is far more potent a force in the universe than selfishness is.

Paul did a pretty darn good job at that, as well.

Philosophy is not more leading to solipsism than religion. Whose soul is it we are trying to save? I may be splitting hairs here, but try this on. Solipsism puts the self at the center of all knowledge, which may depend in part upon the invention of the separate self by philosophy. What I am suggesting is a fact that every adult, and every child; and every fly and maggot seems to recognize: that life, and not self, is the only reality.

I would suggest that you broaden your thoughts of God. There is very little selfless in God, or in the God business. The reason we so often anthropomorphise God is that we see God as an extension of our being rather than the reverse. That is the why of all the prayers and sacrifice; not to do God's bidding, but to have God do ours. Where was the selflessness of the Jews in Jerusalem? Look at the world Jesus painted, of people suing each other for shirts, children ignoring the needs of their parents to meet promises to the temple, and thieves and lepers in abundance. You know what Jesus died of: the fear of Justice. In that petty diseased country so intoxicated by God, and so drowning in poverty there was enough money in that one city to build the Colosseum. It was just business, and God was the product.

[Fido]

Howe wrote: Intangibles definitely exist. They do not occupy space - only the substances involved in "memorializing" them do (alluding to the prior remarks about electrons and chemicals in the brain... and documents and other recordings, too).

Is there any reason why something needs to occupy space to exist? Existence is a concept. It is "recognition by a being." So, even without humans, I am sure dogs recognize happiness, fear, hunger, etc.

Sure, people think that if a thing does not exist as matter it does not exist. If I say a memory is an intangible reality that reflects to some degree a reality that once was; I am not saying this is that. A copy, however correct is still a copy, and not the original. But we have memories, and thoughts, and sometimes invent, or use intangible concepts. Are they real. They are a part of our lives, and our lives are sort of intangible, but real, and with this real intangible we can give reality to all we think, or dream, or fear, or desire. And as I may have mentioned; all concepts lack weight. We do it first in our heads, and only second in real space and time.

[bob.appleyard]

Fido wrote: Bob, since your definition of Platonic forms is as I understand it to be is correct, and since I do not agree with what Plato saw in ideas, and rather believe all ideas are perfect, and yet unreal; please tell me in what fashion you think it is unconnected.

Perfect forms and human institutions are not the same thing.

Stars, planets and so on, approximate spheres because of natural laws, which humans have some understanding of. Their sphericity is not a human-imposed quality.

Quote: Math is a model for reality, but is based on simple identity or the theory of conservation, which is for tangible qualities, tangible.

Mathematics is based upon a small set of fundamental axioms, and deals with concepts and definitions. I don't think any mathematician would ever suggest that maths is a "model for reality."

Quote: With the increase of technology, more precise and sensitive measuring tools has taken much of what once was philosophy into the world of science. Now Philosophy deals almost exclusively with intangibles, metaphysical in the sense of being apart from the physical world of sensation, that can be measured, but not metaphysical in the sense of forces beyond the control of men, like spirits, and gods, and magic. If we deal with a concept like justice, we may think of justice as a real quality and not just a concept that is still beyond sensation or measurement. To know anything of justice we have to measure its effect in presence, and its effect in want, and of course, by way of illustration, to examine authorities, and history. The other side of all these intangible concepts is that we relate through them. No concept is entirely abstract, because no concept is formed that is not shared, and in sharing these we relate. Justice is not only a concept but a form of relationship. Government is not only a concept but a form of relationship. Love is not only a concept, but a form of a relationship, but marriage is a more formal form of relationship yet. What do you think.

How exactly would you measure justice?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: What I am suggesting is a fact that every adult, and every child; and every fly and maggot seems to recognize: that life, and not self, is the only reality.
That's a nice suggestion, but let me ask you, what do these sentences mean to you?
Quote: Y'shua showed the philosophers that selflessness is far more potent a force in the universe than selfishness is.
Quote: It tends to lead one to have a solipsistic view point. And that is a false reality.
You can hardly contradict my point by expressing the exact same concept that I did. The fact is philosophy has lead the modern world into a lot of really bad thinking. The idea that truth does not exist, that the end justifies the means, that someone else's life should be sacrificed for the good of many (John 11:49-50 is an excellent illustration of this) etc all stem from philosophical rumination. The celebrated philosophers of the modern era are what has made our society what it is, and their thoughts are merely extensions of the same philosophers that Y'shua and Shu'al took to task 2000 years ago. The early medieval church pretty much wholesale abandoned Christ's teachings in favor of Greek philosophy in the time of Origen and Augustine of Hippo, about three hundred years later, and it is easy to see that this was not a good thing for the world. If only folks like Augustine and Origen would have taken Shu'al's good advice concerning philosophy to heart maybe we would have avoided one of the darkest chapters of human history.

Quote: Whose soul is it we are trying to save?
All who have ears to hear. Sheep recognize the voice of their master when He calls.

But you did somewhat touch on an important facet of what Y'shua taught, much of the religion at the time was selfish, and much of the religion today is equally selfish. Religion is entirely a human institution and has nothing to do with the teaching of Y'shua whatsoever. Religious and ritualistic thinking can destroy a person. Religion is about how to work your way into God's grace and that is not possible, one must be invited (Matthew 22:1-14). What Y'shua taught was to have a relationship with God (Mark 12:28-34). This concept is found in the Shema. It is the foremost commandment of God.

'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'

The second most important commandment is this:
'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

In these two commandments can be found the whole of the Law and the Prophets. All the work one can do is but dust compared to having these two truths in your heart. In this, false piety and false works are very much the same. The actions one takes are of little consequence if a righteous heart is not guiding them. Quite a lot of evil has been committed in the name of good works, every bit as much as has come from false piety. Saying "do this thing" is only empty words if a righteous heart is not guiding the action. Take a look at John 12:1-8 for a perfect example of how this can be.

Redemption comes from God's unmerited favor, not because we have somehow caused God to owe it to us, through our works or piety.

So, you are close to comprehending some of the teachings of Moshiach. The problem with what you said, that I seem to see, is that you only recognize the second commandment, and ignore the importance of the first.

Personally, I would have to say it is the selfishness of the entire human race from it's very beginning that caused Yeshua's death to be necessary. (if you take a look at John 11:49-50 you can see how one particularly selfish facet of philosophy that is still popular in the modern era was instrumental in the decision by the religious leaders to have Y'shua executed).

If fear of justice was present in any way, they wouldn't have dared to whip Him, crown Him with thorns, and nail Him to a cross. Obviously, fear of justice was far from their minds when they did this. But then it was written that it would be this way.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my thinking for you a bit. :-D

[Fido]

Quote: bob.appleyard wrote: Fido wrote: Bob, since your definition of Platonic forms is as I understand it to be is correct, and since I do not agree with what Plato saw in ideas, and rather believe all ideas are perfect, and yet unreal; please tell me in what fashion you think it is unconnected.

Perfect forms and human institutions are not the same thing.

Stars, planets and so on, approximate spheres because of natural laws, which humans have some understanding of. Their sphericity is not a human-imposed quality.

A form is a form is a form. We relate through the idea of perfect forms, and relate through imperfect forms built on a formula of a perfect form.

I agree that we do not impose qualities upon forms, but I agree with Kant, if I can suggest that I might understand what he was getting at, that we do not understand what we are seeing until we can see it as concept, which is to say, its form. Even though we have no perfect examples of a sphere, when we know what such a form would consist of we know as well what every spherical body consists of. Then with an understanding of what a sphere consists of, we can recreate, and reproduce the form as well.

Quote: Quote: Math is a model for reality, but is based on simple identity or the theory of conservation, which is for tangible qualities, tangible.

Mathematics is based upon a small set of fundamental axioms, and deals with concepts and definitions. I don't think any mathematician would ever suggest that maths is a "model for reality."

Certainly it is. I had the same sort of discussion with a German theoretical physicist studying near by. I asked if he had a model of the universe, and He said: I must confess, I have not. It did not take me long to figure out that he did. If it does not add up, what is the point of counting? Identity or conservation allows mathematics. One apple and one apple make two, but that does not mean that any two apples on the earth are as equal as one is to one. The only way math becomes effective and reliable in our lives is that it serves as an exacting model, which is to say a form with a great precision and coherence.

Quote: Quote: With the increase of technology, more precise and sensitive measuring tools has taken much of what once was philosophy into the world of science. Now Philosophy deals almost exclusively with intangibles, metaphysical in the sense of being apart from the physical world of sensation, that can be measured, but not metaphysical in the sense of forces beyond the control of men, like spirits, and gods, and magic. If we deal with a concept like justice, we may think of justice as a real quality and not just a concept that is still beyond sensation or measurement. To know anything of justice we have to measure its effect in presence, and its effect in want, and of course, by way of illustration, to examine authorities, and history. The other side of all these intangible concepts is that we relate through them. No concept is entirely abstract, because no concept is formed that is not shared, and in sharing these we relate. Justice is not only a concept but a form of relationship. Government is not only a concept but a form of relationship. Love is not only a concept, but a form of a relationship, but marriage is a more formal form of relationship yet. What do you think.

How exactly would you measure justice?

I would measure justice by the circumstances. If two people have a difference of opinion regarding justice, justice is not what would make each happy, or what would make each miserable; but what each can agree to. So long as it is an issue, or one of the parties is not dead from the dispute then each is relating to the other through that form as a lens. Justice is very much a thing of measures, but it is always found in particular instances of, or recognized by absence; but is not ever found in perfection, but conceived in that fashion, perfected, distilled, unalloyed.

[Howe]

Fido wrote: I would measure justice by the circumstances. If two people have a difference of opinion regarding justice, justice is not what would make each happy, or what would make each miserable; but what each can agree to. So long as it is an issue, or one of the parties is not dead from the dispute then each is relating to the other through that form as a lens. Justice is very much a thing of measures, but it is always found in particular instances of, or recognized by absence; but is not ever found in perfection, but conceived in that fashion, perfected, distilled, unalloyed.

Fido, your answer begs the question on justice. Justice is supposed to be doled out in the absence of agreement. Define it in the absence of agreement.

[Fido]

Quote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: What I am suggesting is a fact that every adult, and every child; and every fly and maggot seems to recognize: that life, and not self, is the only reality.
That's a nice suggestion, but let me ask you, what do these sentences mean to you?
Quote: Y'shua showed the philosophers that selflessness is far more potent a force in the universe than selfishness is.
Quote: It tends to lead one to have a solipsistic view point. And that is a false reality.
You can hardly contradict my point by expressing the exact same concept that I did. The fact is philosophy has lead the modern world into a lot of really bad thinking. The idea that truth does not exist, that the end justifies the means, that someone else's life should be sacrificed for the good of many (John 11:49-50 is an excellent illustration of this) etc all stem from philosophical rumination. The celebrated philosophers of the modern era are what has made our society what it is, and their thoughts are merely extensions of the same philosophers that Y'shua and Shu'al took to task 2000 years ago. The early medieval church pretty much wholesale abandoned Christ's teachings in favor of Greek philosophy in the time of Origen and Augustine of Hippo, about three hundred years later, and it is easy to see that this was not a good thing for the world. If only folks like Augustine and Origen would have taken Shu'al's good advice concerning philosophy to heart maybe we would have avoided one of the darkest chapters of human history.


Origen cut his balls off so nothing would get between him and God. But as far a philosophy leading the world into a lot of bad thinking, I think you have the chicken before the egg. A lot of bad thinking existed before philosophy, and philosophy in damping down the credible has given some light to science and reason. Now, our earliest myths have God putting us in the way of knowledge. But if we rely only on revealed knowledge we have to endure a lot of nut case shined up as the will of God. I think it is very possible to accept that God made this world follow a certain order, and gave us minds to decipher that order, and not for any power over others, but only to share the goodness of God with our fellow human beings. To this end, philosophy has served both men and God.

Quote: Quote: Whose soul is it we are trying to save?
All who have ears to hear. Sheep recognize the voice of their master when He calls.

But you did somewhat touch on an important facet of what Y'shua taught, much of the religion at the time was selfish, and much of the religion today is equally selfish. Religion is entirely a human institution and has nothing to do with the teaching of Y'shua whatsoever. Religious and ritualistic thinking can destroy a person. Religion is about how to work your way into God's grace and that is not possible, one must be invited (Matthew 22:1-14). What Y'shua taught was to have a relationship with God (Mark 12:28-34). This concept is found in the Shema. It is the foremost commandment of God.

There is no difference between serving God and serving mankind. Mankind is the face of God we know on this earth, and if we spit in that face we are spitting in the face of God.

Quote: Quote: 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'

The second most important commandment is this:
'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.

In these two commandments can be found the whole of the Law and the Prophets. All the work one can do is but dust compared to having these two truths in your heart. In this, false piety and false works are very much the same. The actions one takes are of little consequence if a righteous heart is not guiding them. Quite a lot of evil has been committed in the name of good works, every bit as much as has come from false piety. Saying "do this thing" is only empty words if a righteous heart is not guiding the action. Take a look at John 12:1-8 for a perfect example of how this can be.

I can't stand John, but I understand the scisism and gnosticism he was fighting. But, I agree with the gnostics, and even the Muslem Suffis, if I understand them well. You can only know God in the spiritual form. But I agree with the second commandment.

Quote: Redemption comes from God's unmerited favor, not because we have somehow caused God to owe it to us, through our works or piety.

Here we part company. God's favor is not proof of anything. Life is not proof of anything. All are blessed. Some are blessed here, and some are blessed later. But individually, apart from merit, we either lean toward God like a plant leans toward the sun, or we build a wall between ourselves and God. We only have one way to show to ourselves, and not to God who sees all, or our neighbors who are blind; but show to ourselves what is in our hearts, and what is in our souls, and our life with what contempt we see both poverty and wealth while our neighbors are in need. We must live and die confident that we deserve a reward.

Quote: So, you are close to comprehending some of the teachings of Moshiach. The problem with what you said, that I seem to see, is that you only recognize the second commandment, and ignore the importance of the first.

Personally, I would have to say it is the selfishness of the entire human race from it's very beginning that caused Yeshua's death to be necessary. (if you take a look at John 11:49-50 you can see how one particularly selfish facet of philosophy that is still popular in the modern era was instrumental in the decision by the religious leaders to have Y'shua executed).

Yes, but was that not what Jesus was saying in a larger fashion. They were right, but short sighted. Jesus was telling one way of dealing with the Romans, and they were only seeing another way. Jesus was saying all that nonsense was nothing, and meaningless in the relationship between God and Man. He was urging total cooperation, and total submission because he could see beyond the Romans. Giving unto God that which is God's is giving everything. Giving unto Ceasar is not giving Caesar any more than God has given him the power to take. But to invest the least thought into Caesar, or emotions, or resistance is beyond what God asked from his followers.

Quote: Quote: If fear of justice was present in any way, they wouldn't have dared to whip Him, crown Him with thorns, and nail Him to a cross. Obviously, fear of justice was far from their minds when they did this. But then it was written that it would be this way.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my thinking for you a bit. :-D

You should not confuse what the Romans did with what the Jews did. Jesus died as a revolutionary, but he was right. His kingdom is not of this world. It was beyond this world and still is. Jesus threatens any one who depends upon temporal powers, like governments, teachers, preachers or popes. Jesus tore it down, and others built it up. We have to see the power organization for what it is, nothing without the support of the people, and more of nothing than anything..

[Fido]

Howe wrote: Fido wrote: I would measure justice by the circumstances. If two people have a difference of opinion regarding justice, justice is not what would make each happy, or what would make each miserable; but what each can agree to. So long as it is an issue, or one of the parties is not dead from the dispute then each is relating to the other through that form as a lens. Justice is very much a thing of measures, but it is always found in particular instances of, or recognized by absence; but is not ever found in perfection, but conceived in that fashion, perfected, distilled, unalloyed.

Fido, your answer begs the question on justice. Justice is supposed to be doled out in the absence of agreement. Define it in the absence of agreement.

Justice is not doled out, but is the form of a just relationship. Giving a third party power to decide, and dole out justice is like trying to squeeze lemon juice out of a turd. Justice is within everyones reach, people have been reaching agreements as to justice since way before history. But the greatest injustice is for those who need justice to have to seek it elsewhere. Justice should be immediate, since the need for it is constant.

[Howe]

On that take, you are truly expressing a Utopian view. It will never happen, so the view cannot be helpful to analyzing existing policy.

[Atlas Bergeron]

The Newb wrote: tangible objects are things that hold substance and mass from the smallest proton to the largest star

intangible things would be things that have no substance and mass

heres the question:

a belief is an intangible object by common definition, however if you break down what a belief really is you will see that it holds substance and mass

in the human brain there are chemical reactions that actually create thought processes, and memories, knowledge, beliefs. these are stored in nerves within the brain for recall at will thus leaving the fact that the intangible are actually tangible

your thoughts
It is an irrelevant question. If they did exist, they would have no relation to human conduct or human activity--and never could. An "intangible" thing is something which has no relation to reality. If it has no relation with reality, it can never interact with us. If it can never interact with us, there is no point in wondering whether or not it exists--since it will never matter.

[Howe]

But intangibles have a very direct effect on human conduct. Happiness is an intangible, and when a person is happy, they tend to be more productive or change their behavior from whatever it might be when they are not happy.

Pain is an intangible, but it forces you to avoid it.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Howe wrote: But intangibles have a very direct effect on human conduct. Happiness is an intangible, and when a person is happy, they tend to be more productive or change their behavior from whatever it might be when they are not happy.

Pain is an intangible, but it forces you to avoid it. We have differing defintions of "intangible."
Your definitions is "you cannot see it." My definition is "you cannot interact with it."

[Howe]

I am not sure I understand your definition.

Take words on a page. You can interact with them because you can erase them or obliterate them.

Take pain. You can take a pill.

[Fido]

Howe wrote: On that take, you are truly expressing a Utopian view. It will never happen, so the view cannot be helpful to analyzing existing policy.

Not Utopian, but primitive. Look at how American Indians and German tribesmen settled their differences. Once it was established what happened, the penalty phase began family to family, so that even in cases of bloodshed the killer often went free. But damages had to be paid, and peace had to be bought. What I am trying to tell you is that justice was not a dead letter in a book, but a dynamic process of communication between two families, two tribes, or two communities focused on justice as staple of their relationship. The thing might have murder on one end and a marriage on the other and a birth in between.

Today justice is highly formalized in law. We do not have the same freedoms as our antecedents. Nor do we have the same rights. Nor do we have the same ability to work out the affairs of our life to a mutually acceptable ratio of justice. Instead, we are law bound, and one party or the next can use law like a lever. I know what has worked, but more importantly, I know that what we have is not working.
I don't mean to get so far off topic.

[Fido]

Howe wrote: But intangibles have a very direct effect on human conduct. Happiness is an intangible, and when a person is happy, they tend to be more productive or change their behavior from whatever it might be when they are not happy.

Pain is an intangible, but it forces you to avoid it.

We have built our entire modern existence with ideas which were once intangible, and still are, but bear some relationship with reality. You can't touch an idea, but an idea can touch you in such a way that you are motivated to create it in reality. If an idea is held only in our minds and becomes nothing, or goes no where, its existence is only transitory, but is is the result of, and has some correspondence with a certain arrangement of brain chemicals and fixed proteans. Even ideas have some sort of real existence, because we can bring them into our conscious minds at will, and some can last a life time.

[Fido]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: The Newb wrote: tangible objects are things that hold substance and mass from the smallest proton to the largest star

intangible things would be things that have no substance and mass

heres the question:

a belief is an intangible object by common definition, however if you break down what a belief really is you will see that it holds substance and mass

in the human brain there are chemical reactions that actually create thought processes, and memories, knowledge, beliefs. these are stored in nerves within the brain for recall at will thus leaving the fact that the intangible are actually tangible

your thoughts
It is an irrelevant question. If they did exist, they would have no relation to human conduct or human activity--and never could. An "intangible" thing is something which has no relation to reality. If it has no relation with reality, it can never interact with us. If it can never interact with us, there is no point in wondering whether or not it exists--since it will never matter.

Intangibles... never matter. Good one ATlas.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Howe wrote: I am not sure I understand your definition.

Take words on a page. You can interact with them because you can erase them or obliterate them.

Take pain. You can take a pill.
such things are tangible, they interact with reality.

Something like a lepricon is intangible, it does not exist in reality. It may exist in a dimension that is not reality, but it cannot interact with us.