View Full Version : Ted Turner Calls For One World Religion
Sol Invictus
01-07-2010, 05:34 PM
A one world religion so that the world will accept UN control and a world government.
fhPFgyktQv8
The Lawspeaker
01-07-2010, 05:37 PM
It's getting ever more visible is it ?
Sol Invictus
01-07-2010, 05:46 PM
People really need to watch Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement.
It's all there and it's revealing itself to us one by one.
XR9SfkVEf5o
It just once again shows how manipulable and man-made religion is. Why is there a need for it at all? Instead of trying to forge a unified religion, why not discard religion in its entirety, and follow rationalism instead.
It just once again shows how manipulable and man-made religion is. Why is there a need for it at all? Instead of trying to forge a unified religion, why not discard religion in its entirety, and follow rationalism instead.
I think they now have got that religion is a much more powerful tool , if compared with mere rationality or atheism , if you want to dominate people.
Science is similar to freedom and democracy because it works on dimostrations and falsifications , it's a fragile system that put itself on trial on and on , while religion is dogmatic , can't stand critics , especially the revealed religions like Judaism Christianity and Islam.
People who think are more skeptical at powers.
People who believe tend to be not and take all orders from the above as truth , granted.
Under the guise of extreme ecologists , pro-vegetarians , humanitarians and all of these self proclaimed do-goodists , there are always them , the (neo)communists , beware their words.
Anthropos
01-07-2010, 09:00 PM
It just once again shows how manipulable and man-made religion is. Why is there a need for it at all? Instead of trying to forge a unified religion, why not discard religion in its entirety, and follow rationalism instead.
Since God exists, discarding religion means cutting man in half and trying to save only that which is most incidental and insignificant.
By the way, what do you mean 'follow rationalism'? Pure rationalism is nothing to follow. It's not a basis for attitudes and considered as such it is purely illusory. It has no principles. It can only lead to endless debates and endless and mostly fruitless strife. It divides people rather than uniting them, since appeal to the unifying fundamentals of existence is seen as if it was 'man-made'. Therefore it can always be manipulated in a way that traditional religion can never be manipulated. What you mean is probably that we should follow some kind of rationalist philosophy or some kind of humanism which imitates religious faith although instead of traditional, true and meaningful it is really empty, as such a philosophy must be! Considered as such, rationalism is perfect for domination: It can and will be used, as we already can see, by leaders, to divide and conquer the minds of men, who are reduced to meaningless production units, consumers, self-fulfilling individuals and so on.
It just once again shows how manipulable and man-made religion is. Why is there a need for it at all? Instead of trying to forge a unified religion, why not discard religion in its entirety, and follow rationalism instead.
That is Communism to the bone. Why not discard all traditions, identity and memory and let rationalism feed us all trough a pipe from the factory. It would be so much more effective.
Since God exists...
That is Communism to the bone. Why not discard all traditions, identity and memory and let rationalism feed us all trough a pipe from the factory. It would be so much more effective.
Traditions are fine; superstition is unnecessary. In order for a monotheistic religion to function properly, the adherent needs to believe in the existence of God. Since we know now that there is no evidence for the existence of God, this religiosity is no longer a viable option for the future. Science, geography and astronomy now explain most of the fundamental questions we had about existence. And we know that we have evolved from lesser creatures, and were not created as a separate species all at once by a god, as the holy scriptures told us. And that's just one example. A truly openminded and objective person can no longer follow these institutionalized superstitions. They are past their sell-by dates. We need to move beyond that and adapt.
Aemma
01-07-2010, 09:27 PM
That is Communism to the bone. Why not discard all traditions, identity and memory and let rationalism feed us all trough a pipe from the factory. It would be so much more effective.
LOL well you have a point Jamt. Totalitarianism of any sort is ugly any way you slice it. However a Unified World Religion based on what I can only assume is an Abrahamic hegemony is just as damaging to the world's many cultures and many peoples.
Klärchen
01-07-2010, 09:31 PM
It just once again shows how manipulable and man-made religion is. Why is there a need for it at all? Instead of trying to forge a unified religion, why not discard religion in its entirety, and follow rationalism instead.
Rationalism can also not explain everything, esp. not essential questions, Loki.
Since God exists,
Since what??
I'd better say "since some people believe Gods exist"
Traditions are fine; superstition is unnecessary. In order for a monotheistic religion to function properly, the adherent needs to believe in the existence of God. Since we know now that there is no evidence for the existence of God, this religiosity is no longer a viable option for the future. Science, geography and astronomy now explain most of the fundamental questions we had about existence. And we know that we have evolved from lesser creatures, and were not created as a separate species all at once by a god, as the holy scriptures told us. And that's just one example. A truly openminded and objective person can no longer follow these institutionalized superstitions. They are past their sell-by dates. We need to move beyond that and adapt.
Don’t worry so much about the evidence for the existence of God and Christianity. There is plenty of evidence that your ancestors where convinced of this and your ancestors might not have been as stupid as you think. Nobody can really invent the world in disregard from the past and roots.
Anthropos
01-07-2010, 10:01 PM
Traditions are fine; superstition is unnecessary. In order for a monotheistic religion to function properly, the adherent needs to believe in the existence of God. Since we know now that there is no evidence for the existence of God, this religiosity is no longer a viable option for the future. Science, geography and astronomy now explain most of the fundamental questions we had about existence. And we know that we have evolved from lesser creatures, and were not created as a separate species all at once by a god, as the holy scriptures told us. And that's just one example. A truly openminded and objective person can no longer follow these institutionalized superstitions. They are past their sell-by dates. We need to move beyond that and adapt.
If you look into ancient sacred sciences you will find that tradition is really the basis for science! Science has at times in turn had an impact on tradition, and at least in some cases quite rightly so. But the core of religious beliefs are not at odds with science, and Christianity, in its traditional form, has adapted quite well to ever-changing circumstances. What makes it seem as if religion were an outdated thing is not science, but rather a counter-movement aiming at denuding men of their traditions. This counter-movement has been successful insofar as it has drawn a lot of people away from faith, but it has been unsuccessful when it comes to destroying faith, and it will continue to be unsuccessful in that even if followers of faiths may be fewer in numbers.
A one world religion with religious programming that can be broadcast on Turner's cable/digital stations. That molester moustached idiot became irrelevant about a decade ago.
Majar
01-08-2010, 09:43 AM
A one world religion so that the world will accept UN control and a world government.
700 Club "news," lol. Well, everything they criticized in their report sounds like common sense to me. I did not get any sense that "one world religion" was being plotted. "Diversity amongst world religions?" Heaven forbid! Other faiths might have valid paths? Oh, no way! We have to win these infidels over for Jay-sus before the Rapture.. These Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as Muslim Wahhabis. They push their missionaries throughout the world and gain converts through underhanded tricks and bribes. What they are doing is warping traditional cultures and creating enmity between neighboring peoples where there was none before.
Rationalism can also not explain everything, esp. not essential questions, Loki.
I'm very convinced of this , "the more I know the less I know" or sorta once one said , there'll be for ever something we won't be able to grasp via science , because science work on measurable things , I call it the dark side.
But I'd like that dark side not being exploited by clergymen and powerful lobbies , why can't we leave the unexplicable to poets and artists?
I'm very convinced of this , "the more I know the less I know" or sorta once one said , there'll be for ever something we won't be able to grasp via science , because science work on measurable things , I call it the dark side.
But I'd like that dark side not being exploited by clergymen and powerful lobbies , why can't we leave the unexplicable to poets and artists?
Precisely. Because something is unknown or mysterious, it does not mean we should automatically ascribe it to a miraculous god. It could merely mean that we just don't understand the workings behind it yet. To attribute all the unknown to God is always taking a leap of faith, i.e. a jump in logic.
Precisely. Because something is unknown or mysterious, it does not mean we should automatically ascribe it to a miraculous god. It could merely mean that we just don't understand the workings behind it yet. To attribute all the unknown to God is always taking a leap of faith, i.e. a jump in logic.
Indeed , to God and also to those who pretend to represent him on earth , the clergy.
I know I may sound anti-catholic to some fella here but I don't , still the fact is there IS a problem with the clergy , with people who try to legitimize and justify powers , actions (that also touch my private life) that I don't think to be right by calling up God.
Fortis in Arduis
01-08-2010, 10:48 AM
Indeed, to God and also to those who pretend to represent him on earth, the clergy.
I know I may sound anti-Catholic to some fella here but I don't, still the fact is there IS a problem with the clergy, with people who try to legitimize and justify powers, actions (that also touch my private life) that I don't think to be right by calling up God.
You have been taught to see God through Catholicism and that is the problem. You (think you) have to go through the Pope for your connection to God, otherwise you are going to Hell.
People all over the world feel and express the God connection in different ways, which is why there is no need to create a one world religion, but 'inter-faith' is seemingly trying to do that, which is why the most liberal religious leaders tend to sign up to it.
I do not think that one needs a priest in order to connect to God.
It just once again shows how manipulable and man-made religion is. Why is there a need for it at all? Instead of trying to forge a unified religion, why not discard religion in its entirety, and follow rationalism instead.
Why can one not have both? You see religion through your Christian upbringing. What if your religion consisted of focusing your energy and positive thinking?
That could be a rational choice.
Why can one not have both? You see religion through your Christian upbringing. What if your religion consisted of focusing your energy and positive thinking?
That could be a rational choice.
That kind of religion is fine and rational. The one which focuses on lifestyle and personal improvement. Very beneficial and uplifting. What I am referring to is the kind of religion that prays to a god that cannot be seen, believing he is real, and hoping for miracles and eventual salvation. That is a false hope.
Monolith
01-08-2010, 12:35 PM
You (think you) have to go through the Pope for your connection to God, otherwise you are going to Hell.
What makes you think so?
What I am referring to is the kind of religion that prays to a god that cannot be seen, believing he is real, and hoping for miracles and eventual salvation. That is a false hope.
Isn't that what most religions do? Anyway, why would that be a false hope?
Aemma
01-08-2010, 12:54 PM
Isn't that what most religions do? Anyway, why would that be a false hope?
I wouldn't say that most religions have a salvation component to them though. Most religions do NOT begin with the premise that Man is born evil and must be saved from himself.
I wouldn't say that most religions have a salvation component to them though. Most religions do NOT begin with the premise that Man is born evil and must be saved from himself.
O yes all religions do just that, includig the Hethan one
Aemma
01-08-2010, 01:14 PM
O yes all religions do just that, includig the Hethan one
No Jamt, the notion of Man being evil and requiring salvation from a supreme being is NOT existent in the Heathen worldview.
No Jamt, the notion of Man being evil and requiring salvation from a supreme being is NOT existent in the Heathen worldview.
Read the Sagas for god’s sake and is not modern day Heathens thing based on the corruption of modern man? And is not Buddhism the religion of the explanation of desire and Hinduism of wants and so on? Man is a sinner and has been one forever, religions role is to try to deal with that and make us a bit better Aemma. Some one somewhere told me that a good biblical understanding of sin is that of the arrow that misses the target.
Fortis in Arduis
01-08-2010, 01:34 PM
What makes you think so?
Catholicism is all about being a Catholic before having a connection with God.
The original nature of the soul is peace and unlimited love.
When the soul falsely identifies with the body it develops attachments which create sorrow.
Aemma
01-08-2010, 01:37 PM
Read the Sagas for god’s sake and is not modern day Heathens thing based on the corruption of modern man? And is not Buddhism the religion of the explanation of desire and Hinduism of wants and so on? Man is a sinner and has been one forever, religions role is to try to deal with that and make us a bit better Aemma. Some one somewhere told me that a good biblical understanding of sin is that of the arrow that misses the target.
Where on earth are you getting that modern day Heathenry is based on the "corruption of man"? Man is human, both "good" and "bad"--plain and simple. There is no idea of "corruption" and that we need saving from a supreme being. You need to read the corpus of writings (Germanic myths and folklore) and even then other writings (some anthropological/historical, others philosophical/metaphysical) in order to grasp the Heathen worldview Jamt, not just the sagas.
As for the other religions that you mention, yes indeed they are what they are but you do them a huge disservice Jamt by reading them with a Christian lens. I'll give you that religions overall seek to assist Man in making us "better people" (whatever that means to you, even then this whole notion is up for debate as far as I'm concerned), but not with a tacit understand that we are born bad or evil or even as sinners. This entire notion of being born "bad" is entirely false for non-Christians.
Monolith
01-08-2010, 02:02 PM
Most religions do NOT begin with the premise that Man is born evil and must be saved from himself.
As far as I know, there's no such a belief in Christianity. We are given power to do either good or evil, and can save ourselves if we choose the former. Hence, it is in our power to save ourselves, because God will not decide instead of us.
Catholicism is all about being a Catholic before having a connection with God.
Not at all. While there are important religious rites and customs, their main purpose is to establish a connection with God. I suppose you were talking about the Catholics of Ulster? In some cases, Catholicism indeed has become a cornerstone of a particular identity, especially in regions experiencing permanent ethno-religious conflicts, like in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The original nature of the soul is peace and unlimited love.
I agree, and I would also add perfection, as it is something we cannot find in life.
When the soul falsely identifies with the body it develops attachments which create sorrow.
Hmmm, this sounds somewhat Manichean.
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 02:25 PM
Where do the prophets of rationalism and fiction get their revelations that religions are false and that modern pseudospirituality is better? These people appear to know a lot, but they made huge leaps of faith in order to obtain their knowledge. As a preliminary assumption they think that revealed tradition that survived for 2000 years must be false. Then they assume that modern 'kind of religion', which is quite similar to modern phantasy fiction, is better! :confused:
And now for something completely different:
No Jamt, the notion of Man being evil and requiring salvation from a supreme being is NOT existent in the Heathen worldview.
All religions and spiritual traditions properly so called (such as Christianity, Islam, Hindusim and Far-Easter Tradition) teach that there is some kind of Being which is most high, and hence it follows that man is inferior. This may be offensive to a few die-hard humanists, but to most people, even to most non-religious people, there is at least some kind of intuitive truth to it.
That man is evil is neither taught by Christianity, by the way.
On the other hand, anyone who thinks that man is himself all-good has little if any insight into human nature; again most people whether Christian or not will readily admit that man is not all-good and that he does not even have the capacity to be such, and so it is not at all a question of whether one is a Christian or not!
All religions and spiritual traditions properly so called (such as Christianity, Islam, Hindusim and Far-Easter Tradition) teach that there is some kind of Being which is most high, and hence it follows that man is inferior. This may be offensive to a few die-hard humanists, but to most people, even to most non-religious people, there is at least some kind of intuitive truth to it.
Is that so? That rather sounds a bit like the debunked idea of urmonotheism to me- with the high god being, in all cases and cultures, Jehovah under a different name.
Hinduism doesn't teach in man's inferiority to the ultimate existence; it teaches that man is the same as the ultimate existence, that his atman is the same as the brahman.
Stoicism doesn't teach in man's servility to Zeus; it calls Zeus the father of gods and men, positing that the only true existence is Zeus by himself. Even the lesser gods, as well as men, are merely temporal and spatial offshoots of Zeus' fiery existence.
The Great Spirit of the Amerindians isn't a king but is called Grandfather or Great Mystery, a pantheistic creator who's as close to two-leggeds and he is to four-leggeds and the wingeds, the trees, the plants, the rocks, the waters. Jehovah would take offense at such idolatry.
Biblical religion teaches the servility of mankind (and the world) to the divine being.
Liffrea
01-08-2010, 03:03 PM
Despite the contradictions, he’s a smart man, he’s worked out the value of belief.
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 03:09 PM
That rather sounds a bit like the debunked idea of urmonotheism to me- with the high god being, in all cases and cultures, Jehovah under a different name.No it doesn't. Why don't you just chill out?
Hinduism doesn't teach in man's inferiority to the ultimate existence; it teaches that man is the same as the ultimate existence, that his atman is the same as the brahman.
That's a gross simplification and taken at face value simply not true. Traditional Hindus do NOT believe that we are all 'wandering Brahmas' (sic). This is absurd, and anyone with as much as a tiny bit of knowledge (or even just common sense?) knows that absurd is what it is!
Stoicism doesn't teach in man's servility to Zeus; it calls Zeus the father of gods and men, positing that the only true existence is Zeus by himself. Even the lesser gods, as well as men, are merely temporal and spatial offshoots of Zeus' fiery existence.Where is Stoicism existing as a tradition? It's not necessarily a retorical question. ;)
The Great Spirit of the Amerindians isn't a king but is called Grandfather or Great Mystery, a pantheistic creator who's as close to two-leggeds and he is to four-leggeds and the wingeds, the trees, the plants, the rocks, the waters. Jehovah would take offense at such idolatry.
Professing your own beliefs here are you? Now I don't know if there is an 'Amerindian tradition' properly so called anywhere, and I did not enumerate anything of the sort. You can go further astray into peripheral regions if you wish; I'm not sure I will follow you there.
Biblical religion teaches the servility of mankind (and the world) to the divine being.
No, it teaches that this world is in rebellion against God.
I got your point there, no worries. ;)
Preemptive Pony™
http://www.osceola.org/Files/Department/OsceolaOrg%5CMyLittlePony.JPG
By the way, what do you mean 'follow rationalism'? Pure rationalism is nothing to follow. It's not a basis for attitudes and considered as such it is purely illusory. It has no principles. It can only lead to endless debates and endless and mostly fruitless strife. ...
The fundamental Principle of Rationalism is that the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive in nature.
A truth reasonably deduced cannot be held to be "illusory" as it is rationally defensible, logically consistent (result follows from premise) and, often, is demonstrably true as a sensate thing, even though the senses were not utilised in the deduction.
The only real debates that arise are when two opposing views are each equally, and deductively, plausible (enter the nature of plausibility and other epistemological excercises). "Endless" debates usually only occur when one or both parties to a debate do not know the above principle of Rationalism; or, are committed to something other than reason.
... Since we know now that there is no evidence for the existence of God,
The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being - namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists - can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived i.e. God exists.
In the seventeenth century, René Descartes defended a family of similar arguments. For instance, in the Fifth Meditation, Descartes claims to provide a proof demonstrating the existence of God from the idea of a supremely perfect being. Descartes argues that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence, he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being - we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being - we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists.
In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz attempted to fill what he took to be a shortcoming in Descartes' view. According to Leibniz, Descartes' arguments fail unless one first shows that the idea of a supremely perfect being is coherent, or that it is possible for there to be a supremely perfect being. Leibniz argued that, since perfections are unanalysable, it is impossible to demonstrate that perfections are incompatible - and he concluded from this that all perfections can co-exist together in a single entity.
In more recent times, Kurt Gödel, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga have all presented much-discussed ontological arguments which bear interesting connections to the earlier arguments of St. Anselm, Descartes and Leibniz. Of these, the most interesting are those of Gödel and Plantinga.
Rationalism can also not explain everything, esp. not essential questions, Loki.
Ohhhh yes it can!:D You might not like them or find them incomplete or emotionally unsatisfactory, but it's salient function is to do nothing other than explain everything.
... Nobody can really invent the world in disregard from the past and roots.
Which is why the 'outing' of one's blood is relied more upon in Heathenry than a book! :)
Precisely. Because something is unknown or mysterious, it does not mean we should automatically ascribe it to a miraculous god.
How about a God that works no miracles (in the Christian sense)?
hat kind of religion is fine and rational. The one which focuses on lifestyle and personal improvement. Very beneficial and uplifting. What I am referring to is the kind of religion that prays to a god that cannot be seen, believing he is real, and hoping for miracles and eventual salvation. That is a false hope.
What is true hope?
The original nature of the soul is peace and unlimited love.
Perhaps the ideal Woman's soul.
As far as I know, there's no such a belief in Christianity.
St. Augustine sure thought differently. Indeed, Original Sin as the very cause of Evil in the world can be read quite clearly in his work (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43).
Man can only sin out of Evil, and must be Evil therefore.
Where is Stoicism existing as a tradition?
You have an extremely rigid notion of "Tradition", Anthropos...:confused2:...Perhaps it is a translation issue; but in English, unless the author is setting-up some exclusivist idea of "tradition", this term is synonymous to custom, practice, habit, convention, usage etc.
No it doesn't. Why don't you just chill out?
That's a gross simplification and taken at face value simply not true. Traditional Hindus do NOT believe that we are all 'wandering Brahmas' (sic). This is absurd, and anyone with as much as a tiny bit of knowledge (or even just common sense?) knows that absurd is what it is!
Where is Stoicism existing as a tradition? It's not necessarily a retorical question. ;)
Professing your own beliefs here are you? Now I don't know if there is an 'Amerindian tradition' properly so called anywhere, and I did not enumerate anything of the sort. You can go further astray into peripheral regions if you wish; I'm not sure I will follow you there.
No, it teaches that this world is in rebellion against God.
I got your point there, no worries. ;)
No, you just don't take too well to the fact that I quashed your veiled notions of urmonotheism and the silly notion that all High Gods of the various world religions are your God with a pair of Groucho Marx glasses on and going by a local pseudonym. What else can you mean when you suggest that people all around the world believe in an over-being/deity "which is most high"? To my knowledge, only Christians use that term for their own over-being. :) Don't beat around the bush; anytime a Christian suggests something along these lines I know what they're thinking- I used to be a fairly decent one of them many, many years ago in my teenage years and Christian trickery in an attempt to play "I dunno what this guy means" doesn't fool me.
As to the atman/brahman relationship not being widespread amongst Hindus, the Bhagavad-Gita seems to disagree with your glib assertions that such a philosophy exists in the minority.
Modern proponents of Stoicism:
http://www.btinternet.com/~k.h.s/stoic-foundation.htm
http://web2.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/stoa/
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 05:15 PM
The fundamental Principle of Rationalism is that the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive in nature.
That's Kantianism, or Kantian rationalism perhaps. Kant however believed in a Christianity of sorts and he also believed in many things which a lot of rationalists won't believe in. On the other hand there is empiric rationalism, which is basically what I was describing. And this is the more straightforward rationalism, in my opinion. Kantianism is a half-hearted and ambiguous thing. Empiric rationalism is heartless, but on the other hand it is not ambiguous in itself, even if it lends support to a chaotic scientific landscape.
That's Kantianism, or Kantian rationalism perhaps. Kant however believed in a Christianity of sorts and he also believed in many things which a lot of rationalists won't believe in. On the other hand there is empiric rationalism, which is basically what I was describing. And this is the more straightforward rationalism, in my opinion. Kantianism is a half-hearted and ambiguous thing. Empiric rationalism is heartless, but on the other hand it is not ambiguous in itself, even if it lends support to a chaotic scientific landscape.
All schools of Rationalism hold to the Principle that truth is intellectual and deductive in nature. Empirical Rationalism goes on to utilise the observable world to either verify or falsify a deduction (as I have alluded to in the previous post). So, even in Empirical Rationalism, that which is empirical is tertiary to the deduction.
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 05:22 PM
Pal:
Stoicism leads a life of sorts in variants of Islam. Other than that and perhaps some kind of existence in Christian culture there is no Stoicist tradition (in the strict sense of tradition, of course) as far as I am aware. Philosophers have a tendency to call anything a 'tradition', but by so doing they only demonstrate a complete lack of appreciation for what is tradition properly so called.
Pal:
Stoicism leads a life of sorts in variants of Islam. Other than that and perhaps some kind of existence in Christian culture there is no Stoicist tradition (in the strict sense of tradition, of course) as far as I am aware. Philosophers have a tendency to call anything a 'tradition', but by so doing they only demonstrate a complete lack of appreciation for what is tradition properly so called.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justus_Lipsius
"Justus Lipsius, Joost Lips or Josse Lips (18 October 1547 — 23 March 1606), was a Flemish philologist and humanist. Lipsius wrote a series of works designed to revive ancient Stoicism in a form that would be compatible with Christianity. The most famous of these is De Constantia (On Constancy). His form of Stoicism influenced a number of contemporary thinkers, creating the intellectual movement of Neostoicism. He taught at the universities in Jena, Leiden and Leuven."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neostoicism
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 05:29 PM
All schools of Rationalism hold to the Principle that truth is intellectual and deductive in nature. Empirical Rationalism goes on to utilise the observable world to either verify or falsify a deduction (as I have alluded to in the previous post). So, even in Empirical Rationalism, that which is empirical is tertiary to the deduction.
This 'reason' that they are praising is void anyway. It's an appeal that sounds very good (at least to some), but in reality it's no more than a catch-phrase. It's belief in a vague faculty of reason and different rationalists are not agreed upon what it is and what it entails (save when they are battling tradition, perhaps).
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 05:32 PM
Lipsius wrote a series of works designed to revive ancient Stoicism in a form that would be compatible with Christianity.
If you don't understand that things like these were implied by what I said, then you have comprehension difficulties.
Cherry-picking on what to reply to eh? Neostoicism was a humanist philosophical movement using an ancient, pre-Christian, and highly-structured, philosophy to take the inconsistencies out of the Christian religion; it wasn't "Biblical Stoicism" but a product of the enlightenment, when there was a very real attempt to do away with the inanities of Christian theism. Lipsus seems to have more to admire in the person of Seneca than in Jesus or any of the goodly apostles.
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 05:34 PM
Stop cherrypicking.
I'm not cherrypicking, but you are trolling.
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 05:37 PM
Cherry-picking on what to reply to eh?
Okay, so now you edited your post. Quoting the relevant part of your message is 'cherrypicking'? :confused: I read all of it. Happy now? And you bolded that exact portion of your post yourself! Do I have to quote all your posts when replying to you perhaps?
This 'reason' that they are praising is void anyway. It's an appeal that sounds very good (at least to some), but in reality it's no more than a catch-phrase.
Rationalism is meant to be the very sieve of truth (the generalities of truth, anyway). Indeed, I would say that actual Rationalists are some of the least concerned people when it comes to catch-phrases: They wish to know so as to avert the void, to dismiss the vacuous.
It's belief in a vague faculty of reason and different rationalists are not agreed upon what it is and what it entails .
They are in enough of an agreement for all of them to call themsleves Rationalists, as they all adhere to the fundamental principle of Rationalism. What reason is, is a question for ontologists and metaphysicians.
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 05:39 PM
Cherry-picking on what to reply to eh? Neostoicism was a humanist philosophical movement using an ancient, pre-Christian philosophy to take the inconsistencies out of the Christian religion; it wasn't "Biblical Stoicism" but a product of the enlightenment, when there was a very real attempt to do away with the inanities of Christian theism. Lipsus seems to have more to admire in the person of Seneca than in Jesus or any of the goodly apostles.
Okay, we have another edit on our hands... :P
Okay, we have another edit on our hands... :P
So?
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 05:42 PM
So?It's still valid:
If you don't understand that things like these were implied by what I said, then you have comprehension difficulties.
"If you don't understand that things like these were implied by what I said, then you have comprehension difficulties."
Hackneyed and very similar to things that atheists like to say to those "that don't get it."
You haven't even addressed me except to say that I:
1) Edit my posts.
2) Have poor comprehension abilities.
:)
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 05:47 PM
Try to drink less before attempting to have a discussion next time. ;)
^
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V7Ehj7eG65Q/Sko63G34GSI/AAAAAAAAA1E/Y1u67_jKSYw/s320/ad+hominem.gif
Aemma
01-08-2010, 06:07 PM
Try to drink less before attempting to have a discussion next time. ;)
Keep it above the belt and on topic please Anthropos.
Keep it above the belt and on topic please Anthropos.
Nah, it's okay. I find it funny that a fellow who's deity is said to have hung out with drunks and, what's more, enjoyed a few sips now of the ol' sauce now and and then should tell me to mind myself when I drink.
:thumb001:
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 08:12 PM
Keep it above the belt and on topic please Anthropos.
Is that so? That rather sounds a bit like the debunked idea of urmonotheism to me- with the high god being, in all cases and cultures, Jehovah under a different name.
For the record I am rather tired of constantly being attacked for having said things that I haven't said and having concepts that I never laboured on put in my mouth, such as 'urmonotheism', an idea neither mentioned nor implied by anything I said. I don't think it's 'above the belt' to argue like that (as Pallamedes did) only to completely ignore what I am replying to it and to pretend that my reply to such a presumptious attack would be irrelevant by posting 'So?' and similar things.
Dear sir, did I launch into the escapades of accusing you of editing posts (truly a terrible crime!), trolling, being uncomprehending, a drunk and so forth? :)
Aemma
01-08-2010, 09:17 PM
For the record I am rather tired of constantly being attacked for having said things that I haven't said and having concepts that I never laboured on put in my mouth, such as 'urmonotheism', an idea neither mentioned nor implied by anything I said. I don't think it's 'above the belt' to argue like that (as Pallamedes did) only to completely ignore what I am replying to it and to pretend that my reply to such a presumptious attack would be irrelevant by posting 'So?' and similar things.
Anthropos please do not play with the meaning or intent of my post; it is most unbecoming of you. I told you to "keep it above the belt and on topic" in relation to this post of yours:
Try to drink less before attempting to have a discussion next time.
This much is clear. You want to debate the topic of religion? By all means do so. But such irrelevant personal comments will not be tolerated.
Anthropos
01-08-2010, 09:25 PM
Anthropos please do not play with the meaning or intent of my post; it is most unbecoming of you.
I'm not playing, and I'm not pretending that my manners have been flawless. I explained what happened, as I see it.
Aemma
01-08-2010, 09:43 PM
I'm not playing, and I'm not pretending that my manners have been flawless. I explained what happened, as I see it.
Alright. Now may we move on please? Debate away! :)
Monolith
01-09-2010, 10:26 AM
St. Augustine sure thought differently. Indeed, Original Sin as the very cause of Evil in the world can be read quite clearly in his work (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43).
Man can only sin out of Evil, and must be Evil therefore.
Can one saint speak for the entire Church? I think not, neither is his opinion regarded as some kind of dogma. Most people are not even aware of his work.
It's nothing but a blatant fallacy to say that Church teaches people that Man is inherently evil.
^
"Original Sin"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Can one saint speak for the entire Church? I think not, neither is his opinion regarded as some kind of dogma. Most people are not even aware of his work.
Actually, Augustine's ruminations have found their way into canonical law; so yes, it is dogma. And in that sense, all Catholics know of Augustine as well as all of the other saints who understand Man and Evil to be inseperable.
It's nothing but a blatant fallacy to say that Church teaches people that Man is inherently evil.
But even when they don't - they do; and they must: Absent Man, Evil would not be. Indeed, Man is Evil from Genesis on: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (King James Bible: Genesis 6:5).
Either man is evil and sinful by his very nature, and requires a divine redeemer, or the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is completely meaningless- which ruins the claims of Christianity.
Monolith
01-09-2010, 11:30 PM
"Original Sin"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
Anyway, one should not confuse a single sin with the overall state of being evil.
Actually, Augustine's ruminations have found their way into canonical law; so yes, it is dogma. And in that sense, all Catholics know of Augustine as well as all of the other saints who understand Man and Evil to be inseperable.
Still, there's no such dogma that explicitly says Man is inherently evil. Unless, of course, one uses a completely arbitrary approach towards the subject.
Either man is evil and sinful by his very nature, and requires a divine redeemer, or the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is completely meaningless- which ruins the claims of Christianity.
The two are mutually exclusive. If we are evil by our very nature, then we have no choice whatsoever. Free will is either nonexistent or superfluous. We can only be evil, so we don't need a divine redeemer because there's no one who can be saved. End of story.
Evil? No. Sinful? By all means.
Anyway, one should not confuse a single sin with the overall state of being evil.
Begs the question, though: How many sins = Evil...?
Still, there's no such dogma that explicitly says Man is inherently evil. Unless, of course, one uses a completely arbitrary approach towards the subject.
Nothing like the Ten Comandments, no. However, as Pallamedes has indicated, Man absent the Redeemer (Christ), is lost ("There is no way to the Father but through me"). So, it stands to reason that Man requires a conduit of Redemtion as he is Fallen; and will remain forever so as he is Evil and the cause thereof. Ergo, Man is Evil as absent Evil Man - as understood in Catholicism - would not be. Man and Evil: Logically inseperable entities that the Church has performed intellectual acrobatics to explain.
If we are evil by our very nature, then we have no choice whatsoever. Free will is either nonexistent or superfluous. We can only be evil, so we don't need a divine redeemer because there's no one who can be saved. End of story.
There it is. - The causa prima of existential dissonance for most thinking Christians of the Universialist approach.
Óttar
01-11-2010, 06:12 AM
A one world religion so that the world will accept UN control and a world government.
fhPFgyktQv8
Seriously dude? CBN!!!? :mad: Those guys want a one world religion called evangelical Christianity with the world capital being in Colorado Springs, Colorado where they wave a "Christian flag." Talk about totalitarianism and losing Constitutional Rights! They talk shit about Hindus all the time, and they aren't chums with Pagans that's for sure. This unconstitutional contingent which has taken over our Air Force should be strangled to death with their own intestines.
The doctrine which Ted Turner was espousing is a theological position which is known as Monism which is expounded on in Hindu Advaita Vedanta philosophy. Monism was also typical of the religion of the later Roman empire with its beginnings in Hellenistic Greece.
Sol Invictus
01-11-2010, 06:25 AM
Seriously dude? CBN!!!? :mad: Those guys want a one world religion called evangelical Christianity with the world capital being in Colorado Springs, Colorado where they wave a "Christian flag."
Ted Turner is actually bad mouthing Ev-Christianity, and it's not CBN calling for it, it's the UN. It's true though, that one of the fundemental goals of Christianity is to convert the whole world under one Christian Cross - which - morally speaking I would love to see happen but really I could care less with what people believe half a world away.. And trust me I am no fan of CBN myself, but thought their reporting on this was reasonable, like even CNN and FOX does in some cases ie Lou Dobbs. :(
Monolith
01-11-2010, 10:56 AM
Begs the question, though: How many sins = Evil...?
Indeed, though not all sins are of equal magnitude. It is rather the nature of a particular sin that is most important.
However, as Pallamedes has indicated, Man absent the Redeemer (Christ), is lost ("There is no way to the Father but through me"). So, it stands to reason that Man requires a conduit of Redemtion as he is Fallen; and will remain forever so as he is Evil and the cause thereof.
Yes, but Man requires a Redeemer solely because he has Fallen in the first man. So the question should be asked, was the first man evil by his very nature, and was God evil because He had created the first man in his image? If not, did the original sin transform Man's nature from good to evil? I think not
. Instead of making Man inherently evil, the original sin rendered him susceptible to both physical and spiritual death (sin).
Ergo, Man is Evil as absent Evil Man - as understood in Catholicism - would not be. Man and Evil: Logically inseperable entities that the Church has performed intellectual acrobatics to explain.
The same could be argued for Good, could it not?
Lurker
01-11-2010, 11:23 AM
A one world religion so that the world will accept UN control and a world government.
fhPFgyktQv8
Shouldn't it be the president of Romania calling for that after the Rapture? [/sarcasm]
It's a reference to Left Behind BTW.
From the Christian standpoint, man without the redeemer is lost because man cannot save himself- except by accepting the redeemer's death as a substitution for his own.
To this I just have the big man himself reply:
"I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)
We I to follow a biblical belief, I would have to believe in the above statement quite categorically- for Jehovah, being all-powerful, would be able to save one's existence by his own will. Being all-knowing, he would be able to ascertain very easily who is contrite or not and, should that one ask for redemption from sin, it'll be granted via divine fiat, no savior needed for, truly, why does an almighty God need such a strange way to save people from sin as the Christians tell?
The thing that has always impressed me about the Jews is this categoricaly denial of anthropomorphism, which is, at its root, what the Christian incarnation is all about. If the supreme deity exists, as I believe he does, he does not exist in the likeness of a man. The Stoic philosophers said as much, and they further said that attempts to capture the divine in human-like terms is a childish notion. Oh, I like the man-like images of the Gods and Goddesses, but I know that there is only One rather than Many. It's only that I see the One in the Many. I think that there'll come a time when the baggage of the idea of Many Gods and Goddesses is done away with, considered a quaint relic of the past, when God was, conceptually, broken up into myriads of pieces, and carted off by mankind to some corner of the world.
The relationship between the poly- and the mono- isn't so cut and dry.
Monolith
01-12-2010, 12:41 PM
The Stoic philosophers said as much, and they further said that attempts to capture the divine in human-like terms is a childish notion.
I find this notion particularly truthful. How can we hope to understand the infinite God, if we cannot even understand our finite selves?
...Oh, I like the man-like images of the Gods and Goddesses, but I know that there is only One rather than Many. It's only that I see the One in the Many.
And some see Many in the One (or One-ness). Of course, your personal understanding and conception of the Godhead is very 'Eastern', in essence.
I think that there'll come a time when the baggage of the idea of Many Gods and Goddesses is done away with, considered a quaint relic of the past, when God was, conceptually, broken up into myriads of pieces, and carted off by mankind to some corner of the world.
I guess you haven't been getting the memos:D;): - this has already happened; and I think this, itself, is cyclical: The many extant in the One grow in intensity within the quarter offered in the womb of One-ness. However, as with all things, the intensity inherent in the attributes of the Godhead seek Selfhood - they need identity, and need to be born. Only when they are weak, when they need to regenerate, do they return to the womb of One-ness to once again regenerate so as to burst forth into the world again and again. One-ness is only as great as the sum of its parts; whereas the sum parts of One-ness exceed the capacity of singularity. The Gods are many, therefore - until they cannot be.
And some see Many in the One (or One-ness). Of course, your personal understanding and conception of the Godhead is very 'Eastern', in essence.
I wouldn't say that it's very eastern, for a similar notion strongly permeates the ancient Egyptian religion, which had a major influence on just about everything that followed after it in the west.
I guess you haven't been getting the memos:D;): - this has already happened; and I think this, itself, is cyclical: The many extant in the One grow in intensity within the quarter offered in the womb of One-ness. However, as with all things, the intensity inherent in the attributes of the Godhead seek Selfhood - they need identity, and need to be born. Only when they are weak, when they need to regenerate, do they return to the womb of One-ness to once again regenerate so as to burst forth into the world again and again. One-ness is only as great as the sum of its parts; whereas the sum parts of One-ness exceed the capacity of singularity. The Gods are many, therefore - until they cannot be.
At heart, I know this to be true. However, the error that I see in a poly view of the world is that, deep down, the attributes of the One have no real power or existence of their own; they are still dependent upon the One yet they [the attributes] are treated as having an independent existence. This seems to have been the case in ancient Egypt, where only the sages and priests understood the concept of divine unity and the common folk were left with a religion what we, today, would call polytheistic- the commons lacked the education that the Egyptian term for divinity (ntr, or neter, neteru, netcher) could be read in both the plural and the singular.
This idea of the One Supreme Being who is Many isn't a new idea in the west; it's to be found in its purest form in the Hermetica, which, although Greek in its literary origin, contains Egyptian religious ideas that go back into pre-pharaonic times.
The Hebrews retained this idea of divine unity, zealously asserting that there was only one God:
Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh Echad!
Their religion became the religion of the unity itself rather than a religion of the fractured unity, yet one of the terms for the unity, Elohim, could, like ntr, be read as being plural or singular. In its plural sense, it means something akin to "sons of God" or "divine beings" and in its singular sense, it seems to imply that all of the various forces of creation (i.e. "the Gods."); yet there's also the root suffix of Elohim, just plain old El, which could be combined with Elohim to form El Elohim, "God of Gods."
I wouldn't say that it's very eastern, for a similar notion strongly permeates the ancient Egyptian religion, which had a major influence on just about everything that followed after it in the west.
You have quite the up-hill explanation on your hands if you are saying that the Egyptians were not practising polytheists... Moreover, the loose filtration of similar archetypal recognition into Greek polytheism hardly constitutes the influence on greater Evropa that you seem to be implying. Indeed, off of the top of my head, I cannot think of a single Egyptian diety that was considered as Omniform, let alone a Norse one (for example), that I am certain never existed (as an attestation) prior to the modern refinement of Christianity.
... the error that I see in a poly view of the world is that, deep down, the attributes of the One have no real power or existence of their own;
Oh...? Let me ask you a question. - If you were sent into battle, who and/or what would you want with you: THE ONE (add reverb); or, the God of War?
And thus, the way I see things: The Gods are practical considerations of Emulation for the Heathen. Only in the most meditative, sedate and head-spun way do I (or you, I venture to bet) give credence to Divine Omniformity. For whilst I am able to stick all of the Gods of my pantheon together and call them "attributes", the truth of the matter is that they do not enjoy having their Identity and Selfhood disregarded.
they are still dependent upon the One yet they [the attributes] are treated as having an independent existence.
I think that they are only dependent on One-ness insofar as a family is a family: I am not my father, I am not my brothers nor any of them I; but we are a family.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.