Kevin's Watch

Now the thread has entered into the arena of High Irony.

Because while distinguishing between the True and the Factual is good, necessary, wise, etc. it does not follow that we should (or even can) successfully determine the status of each piece of knowledge. More, we will disagree over which is which.

Vraith wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:But two mutually exclusive propositions, as I said to Fist, MUST come into conflict - if people think at all. That's why postmodernism fails. As a false proposition, it reveals its great failure. It's not "paradox". It's flat-out self contradiction. You can construct elaborate systems of philosophy - but if a central tenet is logically false - self-contradictory - then it is a false philosophy. The very name, like its predecessor, modernism, reveals its ultimate non-sense to anyone who understands what the word "modern" really means - that "what is NOW", as a relative concept, is ultimately meaningless. Every time is modern to itself. ("But Father - this is the 14th century!") So a philosophy that declares "What is NOW!" might as well say, "What is fashionable at the moment!". And a philosophy that says, "We are SO 'advanced' that we are even AFTER now!" What is needed is transmodernism.

Your position that no philosophical idea that is new cannot be true is false.

True.
Rus, you surely know that "modernism" isn't being, or intended to be used literally in that way...anymore than I literally mean it when I say some women are hot. In fact the term applied to the movement came as the movement was losing influence. [although some say that's not so...that post-modernism is just the continued evolution of modernism] when the term came into use, the movement already wasn't "now" anymore. [at least not the "fashionable" now.]
Additional meanings/definitions for a word don't eliminate other definitions. For instance, anyone reading English translations of German philosophers, in and about Kant's time especially, will constantly run across the word "Immediate." It almost never means the common definitions [right now, nearby, first after, etc.] Almost always it is a lesser-known, but more etymologically "true" or "factual" definition: not mediated.

But, what I'm interested in: is it the definition conflict you see that is the central tenet of postmodernism that is logically false? If it's something else, I'd like to know which particular tenet it is. . Finding fact OR truth from demonstrably false propositions is a twisty business.

Hi Vraith,
I didn't mean by my previous post that the name is the thing that causes it to be false; my use of the word "very" should be enough to indicate that it is only the cherry on top.

Having been a student and teacher of foreign languages for over 20 years, I'm well aware of shifting of meaning in foreign languages. But what I deal with here is English etymology, and meanings of roots really ARE preserved. It is the thing that gives continuity to languages, and prevents them from being mere random jumbles of sound. Even when new words are formed, they are generally formed based on existing roots, and this is certainly true of words with ancient histories. So it is with "modern", and that's WHY we say "modern" and not "gibbledufragl". Of course a new meaning is ascribed, but it is built on the old one.

On logical falsehood, I was responding to what Cambo described as what is often considered to be postmodernism's greatest insight:

each persons truth is necessary to them and in no way should come into conflict with anyone else's truth

That IS the essence of the logically false, if for no other reason than that it ignores mutual exclusivity.

aliantha wrote: But everybody agrees that 2+2=4. *That* is a fact. "Christ rose from the dead" is a tenet of your religion.

Hi Ali,
I don't think we can productively communicate here. I can only say, turning a common pet hobby horse of unbelievers on its head, that Galileo was seriously outnumbered in professing his heliocentric view in the 16th century, and the popularly accepted authority of the day denied his claims, but they did turn out to be true, and the majority wrong. The mere having of a temporal majority on your side does not make for fact on its own, any more than it does for truth.
'2+2=4' is a fact still widely accepted fact (for now) in our time. 'Christ is risen from the dead' is a fact accepted by a narrower circle. I'm afraid we could only go in circles in arguing that. I'll assert it; you'll deny it. Ad infinitum.

rusmeister wrote:

aliantha wrote: But everybody agrees that 2+2=4. *That* is a fact. "Christ rose from the dead" is a tenet of your religion.

Hi Ali,
I don't think we can productively communicate here. I can only say, turning a common pet hobby horse of unbelievers on its head, that Galileo was seriously outnumbered in professing his heliocentric view in the 16th century, and the popularly accepted authority of the day denied his claims, but they did turn out to be true, and the majority wrong. The mere having of a temporal majority on your side does not make for fact on its own, any more than it does for truth.
'2+2=4' is a fact still widely accepted fact (for now) in our time. 'Christ is risen from the dead' is a fact accepted by a narrower circle. I'm afraid we could only go in circles in arguing that. I'll assert it; you'll deny it. Ad infinitum.

I find it somewhat odd that you would be using Galileo to shore up your side of the argument, rus, considering that it was the Church that constituted a large chunk of "the popularly accepted authority of the day" to which you refer.

I'm pretty sure that 2+2 will equal 4 for quite awhile. It's not only a fact; it's an easily reproducible fact. Anybody can take two pencils from the desk and put them together with two pencils from the junk drawer in the kitchen and count them -- et voila! Four pencils, every time.

You are right that you and I could go round and round on the subject of Jesus and never come to a consensus. So let's not do that. Let's instead turn to an observation that I made awhile ago. For someone who is totally outside of any faith -- the agnostic or the atheist -- and is looking at the vast array of spiritual choices before him/her, how do you "sell" Christianity to him/her?

Any claims along the lines of "we know the Truth" aren't going to work, because everybody else claims to know the Truth, too. Length of time in existence? Christianity loses to Hinduism, among other faiths. Martyrs as a sign of conviction? Jews and Muslims and even atheists have died rather than convert. And logical arguments aren't going to work unless you can find common ground to build upon -- and, as we have amply demonstrated here, "My Church says Jesus is Christ and I believe it" (yes, I know I'm simplifying!) is not common ground.

Our atheist friend has a choice to make. What do you tell him?

To be fair, it was the Roman Catholic Church and not the Orthodox that persecuted Galileo. Not that it matters--the Orthodox Church has nasty skeletons in its closet as well.

On the other hand, one has to seriously not understand mathematics at all to believe that 2+2 could ever not equal 4. Individuals may reject it, but that doesn't change it from a verifiable fact.

If I may, I would posit that persuading someone without any religious interest of the truth of a faith is akin to letting Arnold get to know Bertram better even though Arnold hates Bertram. If Arnold is willing, and Bertram has something worthwhile to see, maybe the two of them will become best friends. Maybe. Mind you, like all analogies that one is slippery.

Were I in that position I would say to my atheist friend "I am Orthodox because it answers some needs and questions." Given the chance I would explain my attraction to Orthodoxy, how I see my relationship to it, what I myself understand of its teachings. Were my atheist friend to consent, I would bring him (or her) to a ceremony (Easter Midnight Service is my fave) and encourage them to enter into the feeling of the event. But I would also tell them I cannot prove my faith any more than anyone can prove my pet cat Calvin loved me, or that lasagna tastes good (the latter being a matter of opinion of course). My friend would need to make their own decisions based upon experience.

Frankly, I would be far better off encouraging my friend to feel compassion rather than direct them towards correct belief. But then I am theologically very liberal.

rus,

I did say "IMO". This is how I define and distinguish these things. And I'll explain it a bit more now. Please feel free to give your own definitions.

Facts are knowledge that is verifiable, reproducible, testable. Things that all will agree on. 2+2=4? Even Av agrees on that, and he thinks math is a crock! How about aspects of gravity? You and I can test (I have done so a few times) whether or not things of different weight fall at the same speed. Nobody disagrees with this. It's a fact.

You're absolutely right that I take some "facts" on faith. I have not personally tested or observed the overwhelmingly huge majority of things I believe to be facts. From the speed of light to the temperature at which paper burns to the rate of amoeba reproduction. Yes, I trust that those who tell me various things are correct; that these things are, indeed, facts.

Some "facts" that I take on faith are a little more sure than others. Properties of electricity, electronics, and various other things probably are as described in technical manuals. If they weren't - and if the knowledge of the past was not accurate, proven correct as new knowledge was found, and new things invented based on that knowledge - we wouldn't be communicating as we are.

But still, yes, I accept a lot of facts on faith. The thing is, the things I accept as fact are things that are said to be demonstratable, testable, verifiable. I can go to a lab somewhere and observe, or perform, experiments on many things. Do you believe Substance X will kill Disease Y? Do you believe it is a fact? I'm not going near Disease Y without Substance X! Is the weight of a gallon of water really 8.345404 pounds? Have you weighed a gallon of water? I haven't.

What about your "facts"? Has Christ risen from the dead? Nobody - not my brother, not the leaders of the Orthodox Church, not the Pope, not even you - makes any claim that this fact is demonstratable, testable, verifiable. I'm not close to the only person who does not accept this as a fact. It's simply doesn't fit the definition of "fact." Yes, you're right, it doesn't fit my definition of "fact." But that's all I'm trying to do - establish a definition. If "fact" and "truth" mean exactly the same thing, why do we bother with two words? Let's give them different definitions. The authority you accept in this is not even offering the kind of proof I say is necessary to establish facts.

I call "Christ has risen from the dead" a truth. At least it is for you. It would not be a truth if one or more facts proved it wrong. But that is not the case. It would not be a truth if it was proven to be a fact. (Actually, it may well be that some things are truths and facts. But that's not going to help at this stage of trying to establish definitions.)

And, personally, as I said in the first post, there isn't, or shouldn't be, any conflict between science and religion. They are not mutually exclusive. They work in entirely different areas. And they can - and, for many people, do - compliment each other, and (*gasp* ) even work together! I'll check out that podcast this weekend. I'm interested to know how he approaches this issue.

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

aliantha wrote: But everybody agrees that 2+2=4. *That* is a fact. "Christ rose from the dead" is a tenet of your religion.

Hi Ali,
I don't think we can productively communicate here. I can only say, turning a common pet hobby horse of unbelievers on its head, that Galileo was seriously outnumbered in professing his heliocentric view in the 16th century, and the popularly accepted authority of the day denied his claims, but they did turn out to be true, and the majority wrong. The mere having of a temporal majority on your side does not make for fact on its own, any more than it does for truth.
'2+2=4' is a fact still widely accepted fact (for now) in our time. 'Christ is risen from the dead' is a fact accepted by a narrower circle. I'm afraid we could only go in circles in arguing that. I'll assert it; you'll deny it. Ad infinitum.

I find it somewhat odd that you would be using Galileo to shore up your side of the argument, rus, considering that it was the Church that constituted a large chunk of "the popularly accepted authority of the day" to which you refer.

I'm pretty sure that 2+2 will equal 4 for quite awhile. It's not only a fact; it's an easily reproducible fact. Anybody can take two pencils from the desk and put them together with two pencils from the junk drawer in the kitchen and count them -- et voila! Four pencils, every time.

You are right that you and I could go round and round on the subject of Jesus and never come to a consensus. So let's not do that. Let's instead turn to an observation that I made awhile ago. For someone who is totally outside of any faith -- the agnostic or the atheist -- and is looking at the vast array of spiritual choices before him/her, how do you "sell" Christianity to him/her?

Any claims along the lines of "we know the Truth" aren't going to work, because everybody else claims to know the Truth, too. Length of time in existence? Christianity loses to Hinduism, among other faiths. Martyrs as a sign of conviction? Jews and Muslims and even atheists have died rather than convert. And logical arguments aren't going to work unless you can find common ground to build upon -- and, as we have amply demonstrated here, "My Church says Jesus is Christ and I believe it" (yes, I know I'm simplifying!) is not common ground.

Our atheist friend has a choice to make. What do you tell him?

Well, on Galileo, I pretty specifically said that I was turning the reference on its head and showing how it can be used against this argument of unbelief (that of the majority being right when it serves the purposes of unbelief).

What do I tell an atheist? Well, a lot of the things I told you guys, and refer to things that some of you have tried and most of which most of you refuse to even look at.
But in the end, talking only does so much. Intellectual arguments are woefully inadequate for most people. For me, they were a path to faith, for some they are a path from faith. I think that encountering or experiencing a saint would do more than any words I could ever say, for it is living the Christian life, above all, that converts people. I'd point to the Martyrs of the early Church (who differ critically from other "martyrs" such as suicide bombers, who are murderers and suicides, not martyrs and I don't accept them or Jim Jones-type people as proper understandings of the word), and how dragging them into the arenas and public squares to be killed (it is so critical to note that they did not want to die or try to kill themselves), but how their peaceful behavior in the face of being killed by others just kept drawing the people who witnessed it, or simply encountered those people, to want what they had - something worth both living and dying for. Chesterton's expose makes complete sense of the phenomenon, which thesis I feel you missed in a search for quantity of errors (as you understand them). Otherwise, it makes no sense that people watched other people being killed and then standing up and saying 'I want that, too!'. But they DID, and there's a historical fact for you. They also make nonsense of the claims of an organization seeking secular control of this world.
It is undeniable that martyrdom fueled the Church for 300 years. It winnows out nominalism and people who are into it for social status and leaves only those ready to go all the way with it as the Truth. And the Church so flourished - when it should have been stamped out - that less than 300 years later, it conquered its persecutors.

There's a lot more I could say, but I've learned that if I do say more, people ignore or pass over the really important things I'm trying to say.
For me, Lewis really worked. I discovered GKC later. But to anyone I'll point out the martyrs (genuine martyrs, next to whom murderers and suicides have no place).

Fist and Faith wrote:rus,

I did say "IMO". This is how I define and distinguish these things. And I'll explain it a bit more now. Please feel free to give your own definitions.

Facts are knowledge that is verifiable, reproducible, testable. Things that all will agree on. 2+2=4? Even Av agrees on that, and he thinks math is a crock! How about aspects of gravity? You and I can test (I have done so a few times) whether or not things of different weight fall at the same speed. Nobody disagrees with this. It's a fact.

You're absolutely right that I take some "facts" on faith. I have not personally tested or observed the overwhelmingly huge majority of things I believe to be facts. From the speed of light to the temperature at which paper burns to the rate of amoeba reproduction. Yes, I trust that those who tell me various things are correct; that these things are, indeed, facts.

Some "facts" that I take on faith are a little more sure than others. Properties of electricity, electronics, and various other things probably are as described in technical manuals. If they weren't - and if the knowledge of the past was not accurate, proven correct as new knowledge was found, and new things invented based on that knowledge - we wouldn't be communicating as we are.

But still, yes, I accept a lot of facts on faith. The thing is, the things I accept as fact are things that are said to be demonstratable, testable, verifiable. I can go to a lab somewhere and observe, or perform, experiments on many things. Do you believe Substance X will kill Disease Y? Do you believe it is a fact? I'm not going near Disease Y without Substance X! Is the weight of a gallon of water really 8.345404 pounds? Have you weighed a gallon of water? I haven't.

What about your "facts"? Has Christ risen from the dead? Nobody - not my brother, not the leaders of the Orthodox Church, not the Pope, not even you - makes any claim that this fact is demonstratable, testable, verifiable. I'm not close to the only person who does not accept this as a fact. It's simply doesn't fit the definition of "fact." Yes, you're right, it doesn't fit my definition of "fact." But that's all I'm trying to do - establish a definition. If "fact" and "truth" mean exactly the same thing, why do we bother with two words? Let's give them different definitions. The authority you accept in this is not even offering the kind of proof I say is necessary to establish facts.

I call "Christ has risen from the dead" a truth. At least it is for you. It would not be a truth if one or more facts proved it wrong. But that is not the case. It would not be a truth if it was proven to be a fact. (Actually, it may well be that some things are truths and facts. But that's not going to help at this stage of trying to establish definitions.)

And, personally, as I said in the first post, there isn't, or shouldn't be, any conflict between science and religion. They are not mutually exclusive. They work in entirely different areas. And they can - and, for many people, do - compliment each other, and (*gasp* ) even work together! I'll check out that podcast this weekend. I'm interested to know how he approaches this issue.

A number of thoughts...

One is that we don't hear each other's tone of voice or body language. I think this makes a huge difference in how we perceive things expressed in direct communication (from me to you, rather than to a more impersonal audience). I was talking to my mom recently on the phone - and we've had some pretty honest up-front disagreements - but offense was generally avoided because we could tell that neither wanted to hurt the other, the sympathy of voice and context of personal relationship go a long way to cover the impersonal beating with facts. She admitted this was so when I brought it up. (FTR, she's not Orthodox, much more independent Protestant)

2) Facts.

fact
Look up fact at Dictionary.com
1530s, "action," especially "evil deed," from L. factum "event, occurrence," lit. "thing done," neut. pp. of facere "to do" (see factitious). Usual modern sense of "thing known to be true" appeared 1630s, from notion of "something that has actually occurred." Facts of life "harsh realities" is from 1854; specific sense of "human sexual functions" first recorded 1913.

Ever since I learned Italian (my first foreign language) and learned "fare" (to do) and "il ha fatto" (he has done), that "manufacture" is actually formed from "hand-made" - lit: made by hand (mano fatto) I've recognized related words like fact.

On that background your own definition of fact is something I do not at all agree on and this underscores the need to define everything before we can communicate at all. One of the big things I have learned is how fuzzy much of our language has become. It was my teachers that some here so unfairly malign - or at least think, having read little or nothing of them, that they already know what those people have to say - that began my quest for more precise speech, and a seeming pedantism and wordiness that are absolutely essential to define thoughts correctly - but even then, they are widely misunderstood here, a place that I have always considered above the average in terms of general intellect. We really do bring tons of personal and undefined understandings. Appealing to common understandings extending into the past seems to me to be a way out of the confusion created by modern common understandings, which are not even clear on what a fact is. The description you have given, Fist, is one based on purely materialist assumptions - ones I reject out of hand. If facts are more than merely things that can be proven in some sort of scientific manner, then you must admit a wider range of facts, and I think you have done so - but the things you referenced were purely material ones. I'll say that it is a fact that a person who thought their spouse loved them and then discovers that he/she has been cheating on(euphemism, the Russian "betray" is so much more direct) them, it is a fact that the person is upset to say the least. Is that verifiable? Only by personal experience, God forbid. I can't prove it, but it's nevertheless a fact.

What Orthodox Christian theology calls sin is a fact. People do NOT agree that this is the case, but if described, it may be re-expressed in other terms that people would accept, and might admit that this can actually be observed in human behavior. In that case their objection is more to their own emotional baggage attached to the use of a rather succinct word.

Now I think, based on my own experience, that "Christ is risen from the dead" is a fact that can be reached if the mind has accepted certain other propositions. (Note I say "can"). That sin is a perpetual problem, the existence of moral law, and the strangeness of the history of Christianity as something radically different from other world religions in history. If accepted as true, then it becomes something that was actually done, that was fatto, and is therefore a fact just as much as the rule of Augustus Caesar.

On science vs religion, and on faith vs knowledge, and therefore facts - it's part 16 (Aug 10th) where he deals most with belief and knowledge. (I looked it up to be sure)
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/darwin_and_christianity_-_part_16_faith_and_knowledge_reason_and_revelation

(To save you a lot of time...)

I think it would be more useful to expand what I've said, instead of rejecting it out of hand. Unless, that is, you think the kind of things I've talked about so far are not facts. And, truly, you surprise me often enough that I have no idea if you do think that.

Yes, there are "facts" of various types. Types other than the type I've mentioned.

-It is a fact that Orthodoxy calls certain thoughts and acts "sins." It is a fact that, if you see a certain worldview as the one and only way God wants you to live, all things that oppose that way are sins.

-It is a fact that the vast majority of humans have certain emotional reactions to certain situations. Love is a fact. People do love. It is a fact that people get upset when one they love has betrayed them. ("Cheated" is not so much a euphimism as it is an indication of the kind of betrayal we're talking about. "My wife betrayed me" might mean she told someone a very private secret I told her; or she went after the same job I told her I was going after; or she had a sexual or emotional relationship with another man. "Cheated" means she had a sexual or emotional relationship with another man.)


So it is a fact that you accept Christ is risen from the dead. It is a fact that this belief has shaped the world at least as much as any other fact or belief in human history. And it may be a fact that it is an actual historical event. If we go 2000+ lightyears away, and look back with a telescope, we may or may not see that event take place. We have no way of establishing the event as that type of fact.

And, again, it is not important to the relationship of fact/truth that I brought up in the first post. There is no need to establish it as an actual historical event. Why would you need to? Would it make you a stronger believer? No. And I have no need to prove that it is not a historical event. I don't believe any type or amount of evidence would convince you, and so many others who base their lives on that event, that it did not actually take place. Nor do I want to. As I've said, this path gives you what you need. That's, if you'll pardon the expression, Good News. Why would I want to take it from you? I don't. I only need to stop you from forcing me to live by your beliefs.

Fist and Faith wrote:I think it would be more useful to expand what I've said, instead of rejecting it out of hand. Unless, that is, you think the kind of things I've talked about so far are not facts. And, truly, you surprise me often enough that I have no idea if you do think that.

Yes, there are "facts" of various types. Types other than the type I've mentioned.

-It is a fact that Orthodoxy calls certain thoughts and acts "sins." It is a fact that, if you see a certain worldview as the one and only way God wants you to live, all things that oppose that way are sins.

-It is a fact that the vast majority of humans have certain emotional reactions to certain situations. Love is a fact. People do love. It is a fact that people get upset when one they love has betrayed them. ("Cheated" is not so much a euphimism as it is an indication of the kind of betrayal we're talking about. "My wife betrayed me" might mean she told someone a very private secret I told her; or she went after the same job I told her I was going after; or she had a sexual or emotional relationship with another man. "Cheated" means she had a sexual or emotional relationship with another man.)


So it is a fact that you accept Christ is risen from the dead. It is a fact that this belief has shaped the world at least as much as any other fact or belief in human history. And it may be a fact that it is an actual historical event. If we go 2000+ lightyears away, and look back with a telescope, we may or may not see that event take place. We have no way of establishing the event as that type of fact.

And, again, it is not important to the relationship of fact/truth that I brought up in the first post. There is no need to establish it as an actual historical event. Why would you need to? Would it make you a stronger believer? No. And I have no need to prove that it is not a historical event. I don't believe any type or amount of evidence would convince you, and so many others who base their lives on that event, that it did not actually take place. Nor do I want to. As I've said, this path gives you what you need. That's, if you'll pardon the expression, Good News. Why would I want to take it from you? I don't. I only need to stop you from forcing me to live by your beliefs.

And so you've come full circle.
A) You hold that THE Truth is not important/there is no Truth - there are only "truths". Truth is a fish to be thrown away.

B) We disagree politically about the best way to order society - in short, we disagree about what is good. Just like GKC said in ch 1 of Heretics. I tried to explain the nature of the problem...
I think the latter much less important, ultimately, because I don't think I HAVE any political power. So I think you don't need to worry that I am going to successfully muster up a kind of society that you fear.l

I know about the vagaries of English. It's my native language. I also have to teach it to people who otherwise have no way of knowing what we are talking about, so I have to have very thorough understandings of the nuts and bolts of both the construction and the meaning of our language. If we used "betrayed" we would only need add "with another man (or woman)" to make the nature of the betrayal clear. My point was that "cheat" implies a much more innocuous activity than "betray".

When you speak of "a one and only way God wants me to live", you've really got to clarify. Lots of Orthodox Christians live in lots of different ways. My life varies considerably from that of my priest, or even from practically all of the parishioners of my church in a great many ways. If you mean "strive towards theosis", then I can say "Yeah". But there are a great many ways to do that.

We have no way of establishing nearly all of the history that we know, except by accepting the authority of those who wrote the history. Certainly, there is historical scholarship, but even that only takes us so far and usually can't tell us whether the writer was peaking the truth or not. And yet we think we "know" quite a bit of history.

I rather think it IS important that Christ's incarnation happened at a definite time and place in history, in the middle of a great civilization, and not at some prehistoric time where anything at all could be claimed and nothing at all proven.

rusmeister wrote:A) You hold that THE Truth is not important/there is no Truth - there are only "truths". Truth is a fish to be thrown away.

No, it is not. It is something to be embraced. The Truth I see shows me the nature of reality (so far as I am able to perceive it), my nature, and my place in reality. Your Truth does the same for you. Each of us finds our meaning and fulfillment in our Truth. The fact that I believe your Truth is but one among many within mine, while you believe yours is the only Truth among many falsehoods, does not change what either of our Truths does for either of us. I do not believe the Truth I have found is any more disposable than you think yours is or than I think yours is. We each believe the Truth we embrace is of utmost importance.

rusmeister wrote:B) We disagree politically about the best way to order society - in short, we disagree about what is good. Just like GKC said in ch 1 of Heretics. I tried to explain the nature of the problem...
I think the latter much less important, ultimately, because I don't think I HAVE any political power. So I think you don't need to worry that I am going to successfully muster up a kind of society that you fear.

Oooohhh, there's plenty of you folks out there!

rusmeister wrote:I know about the vagaries of English. It's my native language. I also have to teach it to people who otherwise have no way of knowing what we are talking about, so I have to have very thorough understandings of the nuts and bolts of both the construction and the meaning of our language. If we used "betrayed" we would only need add "with another man (or woman)" to make the nature of the betrayal clear. My point was that "cheat" implies a much more innocuous activity than "betray".

If you spoke only to those who are as brilliant and thoroughly educated in English as you are, you would spend your life alone, speaking only to yourself. I'd be afraid to eat dinner with you. If I ask you to pass the salt, will you write a grade between 65 and 100 on a piece of paper, put it next to the salt, and lecture me on my inadequate understanding of the etymology of the word "pass"? "I did not fail the salt. I passed it. It did the required work to a sufficient standard. Now, perhaps next time, you'll say, 'Will you please pick up the salt shaker and hand it to me?'." There's a comedian who talks about his father being an uptight s.o.b. in this area. "He'd get into arguments with the cops. 'No, you're not bringing me to jail. You're taking me to jail.'"

rusmeister wrote:When you speak of "a one and only way God wants me to live", you've really got to clarify. Lots of Orthodox Christians live in lots of different ways. My life varies considerably from that of my priest, or even from practically all of the parishioners of my church in a great many ways. If you mean "strive towards theosis", then I can say "Yeah". But there are a great many ways to do that.

And again. How is it that everybody else reading this understands my English, but you must tear everything apart to point out flaws? You have taught us MUCH more about how badly we all understand English, education, history, and religion than you have taught us about Jesus, Orthodoxy, or anything else I might suspect the Jesus you believe in would want taught.

rusmeister wrote:We have no way of establishing nearly all of the history that we know, except by accepting the authority of those who wrote the history. Certainly, there is historical scholarship, but even that only takes us so far and usually can't tell us whether the writer was peaking the truth or not. And yet we think we "know" quite a bit of history.

Very true. There are many millions of historical events that we can't truly know happened. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many I've been taught actually didn't happen. And I didn't fight against the idea that Colombus' landing in the Americas was not the pleasant event for those already here that I'd been lead to believe. I don't have a problem with any in particular, however. Is there a universally believed historical event that you do not believe actually took place?

rusmeister wrote:I rather think it IS important that Christ's incarnation happened at a definite time and place in history, in the middle of a great civilization, and not at some prehistoric time where anything at all could be claimed and nothing at all proven.

Heh. Well, of course, since I don't believe it did happen, I think the ultimate "anything at all" was claimed, and it is not proven. Are you suggesting that Christ's incarnation can be proven?

rusmeister wrote:I'd point to the Martyrs of the early Church (who differ critically from other "martyrs" such as suicide bombers, who are murderers and suicides, not martyrs and I don't accept them or Jim Jones-type people as proper understandings of the word), and how dragging them into the arenas and public squares to be killed (it is so critical to note that they did not want to die or try to kill themselves), but how their peaceful behavior in the face of being killed by others just kept drawing the people who witnessed it, or simply encountered those people, to want what they had - something worth both living and dying for.

I've quoted your sentence in full, not because it's a pretty amazing example of a run-on sentence , but because you have totally ignored the point *I* made. My point was that Christianity is not unique in this case. Plenty of people of other faiths have died for their beliefs. And I'm not just talking about suicide bombers or Jim Jones's followers. What about the Holocaust? I have to believe that the Jews (and gypsies and members of the intelligentsia) who died in the gas chambers didn't want to die, and yet they did not recant their beliefs. Farther back in history, we could talk about those who died during the Inquisition, many of whom refused to recant. Still farther back, it could be argued that Socrates meets your (apparent) definition of a martyr: someone who believes it's more important to hold true to one's beliefs than to continue living. And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

rusmeister wrote:Chesterton's expose makes complete sense of the phenomenon, which thesis I feel you missed in a search for quantity of errors (as you understand them).

This is not the first time recently that you have mischaracterized my comments about GKC and "The Everlasting Man", but it's the first time I've had a chance to catch you in the act.

Rus, you've made a lot of your background in teaching and how your studies and your experience have shaped your worldview. Well, I have a bachelor's degree in journalism and spent 20 years as a reporter and an editor. In short, I have a lot of experience in dealing with facts and purported facts. (Ironically, perhaps, given the title of this thread. ) From my experience, one of the maxims that became ingrained in me is this: If you want to convince somebody of something, you had better be damned sure you've got your facts straight before you start. You cannot mount a persuasive argument without a factual foundation.

Now obviously, I can't argue theology with GKC. But I can sure as hell examine his foundation to see if it's sound. And I discovered that it's not. Some of his assumptions have been disproven in the years since his death; I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on those, which is why I called him a man of his times. But Aleister Crowley was *not* unknown during GKC's lifetime. Paganism was reasserting itself in England at the same time GKC was writing that it was deader than a doornail. That, to me, is a sign that the guy didn't do enough research. But if his facts are inaccurate, then how can I believe anything else he says? Just like a novelist whose plot takes a turn for the preposterous, GKC ruined my "suspension of disbelief" out of the box.

It's also very difficult to notice a thesis when the errors are jumping out at you at such a rate.

But I will never understand why - after so much time; when so many people, of such different beliefs have negative opinions of him, for so many different reasons - defending Chesterton is more important than spreading the word of God. You act as though your self-worth is on the line.

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I'd point to the Martyrs of the early Church (who differ critically from other "martyrs" such as suicide bombers, who are murderers and suicides, not martyrs and I don't accept them or Jim Jones-type people as proper understandings of the word), and how dragging them into the arenas and public squares to be killed (it is so critical to note that they did not want to die or try to kill themselves), but how their peaceful behavior in the face of being killed by others just kept drawing the people who witnessed it, or simply encountered those people, to want what they had - something worth both living and dying for.

I've quoted your sentence in full, not because it's a pretty amazing example of a run-on sentence , but because you have totally ignored the point *I* made. My point was that Christianity is not unique in this case. Plenty of people of other faiths have died for their beliefs. And I'm not just talking about suicide bombers or Jim Jones's followers. What about the Holocaust? I have to believe that the Jews (and gypsies and members of the intelligentsia) who died in the gas chambers didn't want to die, and yet they did not recant their beliefs. Farther back in history, we could talk about those who died during the Inquisition, many of whom refused to recant. Still farther back, it could be argued that Socrates meets your (apparent) definition of a martyr: someone who believes it's more important to hold true to one's beliefs than to continue living. And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

hi Ali,
I didn't ignore your point. I believe I proved it wrong. The Christian martyrs ARE unique.
Sure, plenty of honest and sincere people have died refusing to give up their beliefs. THAT is not what makes the Christian martyrs unique. Various other people who died for their beliefs did NOT in fact draw other people after them; did NOT make other people say, "I want what they have!" and jump on board the same boat leading them, very often, to the same death. That was MY point. They did not turn a minority into a majority, and convert the Roman Empire, or any other major nation (or even medium-size one for that matter0.

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Chesterton's expose makes complete sense of the phenomenon, which thesis I feel you missed in a search for quantity of errors (as you understand them).

This is not the first time recently that you have mischaracterized my comments about GKC and "The Everlasting Man", but it's the first time I've had a chance to catch you in the act.

Rus, you've made a lot of your background in teaching and how your studies and your experience have shaped your worldview. Well, I have a bachelor's degree in journalism and spent 20 years as a reporter and an editor. In short, I have a lot of experience in dealing with facts and purported facts. (Ironically, perhaps, given the title of this thread. ) From my experience, one of the maxims that became ingrained in me is this: If you want to convince somebody of something, you had better be damned sure you've got your facts straight before you start. You cannot mount a persuasive argument without a factual foundation.

Now obviously, I can't argue theology with GKC. But I can sure as hell examine his foundation to see if it's sound. And I discovered that it's not. Some of his assumptions have been disproven in the years since his death; I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on those, which is why I called him a man of his times. But Aleister Crowley was *not* unknown during GKC's lifetime. Paganism was reasserting itself in England at the same time GKC was writing that it was deader than a doornail. That, to me, is a sign that the guy didn't do enough research. But if his facts are inaccurate, then how can I believe anything else he says? Just like a novelist whose plot takes a turn for the preposterous, GKC ruined my "suspension of disbelief" out of the box.

I agree that facts are important, generally, speaking, and even that GKC was known to make factual errors, admitted by his staunchest admirers. What amazes those admirers is how he strikes at the heart of a matter even when he does make the occasional (and almost ALWAYS minor) factual error. There are pretty much none of us who, in the course of our arguments, have not made errors. I doubt even you - I certainly doubt me.
But facts do not always reveal truth - or even hold importance, whereas truth can certainly be more important than facts. Yes, 100% factual correctness helps argument. But the real question is, does the error destroy the argument or is it immaterial?
Personally, I still think you sell GKC short. He wrote a lot more than the tiny fraction you've read, and he noted various movements, from spiritualism to paganism, as being on the rise. The central point he made about paganism being dead really WAS true, though. It had been wiped from civilized observation, and NEVER had the popularity and growth that underground Christianity ever had - it really was only isolated pockets outside of civilized public life, that briefly appeared, and just as quickly died, even where your scholars point to the existence of something. There was no sustained life of paganism for 1,500 years in the West, and for 1,000 in the East (in the lands of Christendom).
Most of his facts are thoroughly grounded, though - and factual. The errors you can point out are not important to the thesis. I'd guess that less than half of what you claim to be factual errors are in fact errors, and that the 1,784 facts that ARE undeniable get left out of the reckoning here.

I can't really expect that a confirmed pagan or agnostic could be convinced of those ideas as truth - but they DO make sense of the Christian view, even if you do disagree.

Fist and Faith wrote:It's also very difficult to notice a thesis when the errors are jumping out at you at such a rate.

But I will never understand why - after so much time; when so many people, of such different beliefs have negative opinions of him, for so many different reasons - defending Chesterton is more important than spreading the word of God. You act as though your self-worth is on the line.

Like I said, you interpret things that way. That's not how I see things. I don't consider the things you ascribe to me.
When you can describe me in a way that I can say "Yes, I DO think that", then maybe we can talk. Projection, Fist.

As to errors, the rate is quite low, as I said. Please bring on the errors and we'll see how many are actually agreed-upon errors and which are disputable and which actually have to be acknowledged as not mistaken.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:A) You hold that THE Truth is not important/there is no Truth - there are only "truths". Truth is a fish to be thrown away.

No, it is not. It is something to be embraced. The Truth I see shows me the nature of reality (so far as I am able to perceive it), my nature, and my place in reality. Your Truth does the same for you. Each of us finds our meaning and fulfillment in our Truth. The fact that I believe your Truth is but one among many within mine, while you believe yours is the only Truth among many falsehoods, does not change what either of our Truths does for either of us. I do not believe the Truth I have found is any more disposable than you think yours is or than I think yours is. We each believe the Truth we embrace is of utmost importance.

Let me try phrasing this more in a way that you could admit that you DO think this: In speaking of "your Truth" and "my Truth", either you do not believe in an overarching Truth that is neither mine or yours, or you believe that that overarching Truth is unimportant; that it is not worth fighting over. I am speaking of overarching Truth, not "your Truth" or "my Truth". I am speaking specifically of a Truth that is NOT "mine".

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I know about the vagaries of English. It's my native language. I also have to teach it to people who otherwise have no way of knowing what we are talking about, so I have to have very thorough understandings of the nuts and bolts of both the construction and the meaning of our language. If we used "betrayed" we would only need add "with another man (or woman)" to make the nature of the betrayal clear. My point was that "cheat" implies a much more innocuous activity than "betray".

If you spoke only to those who are as brilliant and thoroughly educated in English as you are, you would spend your life alone, speaking only to yourself. I'd be afraid to eat dinner with you. If I ask you to pass the salt, will you write a grade between 65 and 100 on a piece of paper, put it next to the salt, and lecture me on my inadequate understanding of the etymology of the word "pass"? "I did not fail the salt. I passed it. It did the required work to a sufficient standard. Now, perhaps next time, you'll say, 'Will you please pick up the salt shaker and hand it to me?'." There's a comedian who talks about his father being an uptight s.o.b. in this area. "He'd get into arguments with the cops. 'No, you're not bringing me to jail. You're taking me to jail.'"

Let me try to clarify on this. You are charging me with pedantry; that I am wasting time by making distinctions that make no difference. I say that the use of many words currently accepted today enable views of phenomenon, most especially regarding morality, to appear morally neutral or even positive when they are in fact negative. In short, they support a false view of morality, and therefore the distinctions ARE important. They are NOT meaningless or foolish distinctions as in your "pass the salt" example. If adultery IS a grave sin, then "cheating" is a gross understatement of its wrongness, and a word that accurately describes its true moral effect is called for - many of which are coarse words used by our ancestors.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:When you speak of "a one and only way God wants me to live", you've really got to clarify. Lots of Orthodox Christians live in lots of different ways. My life varies considerably from that of my priest, or even from practically all of the parishioners of my church in a great many ways. If you mean "strive towards theosis", then I can say "Yeah". But there are a great many ways to do that.

And again. How is it that everybody else reading this understands my English, but you must tear everything apart to point out flaws? You have taught us MUCH more about how badly we all understand English, education, history, and religion than you have taught us about Jesus, Orthodoxy, or anything else I might suspect the Jesus you believe in would want taught.

Again, no. You use vague language that would paint me as a religious fanatic that wants everyone to live in a Puritan style with scarlet letters, and then expect me to roll over and take it. I insist on clarity. There is a great deal of variety in the lives of Orthodox Christians, and that they all acknowledge the same worship and the same Truth (and truths) does not erase that enormous variety. It does not create some kind of monotonous society of identical robots.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:We have no way of establishing nearly all of the history that we know, except by accepting the authority of those who wrote the history. Certainly, there is historical scholarship, but even that only takes us so far and usually can't tell us whether the writer was peaking the truth or not. And yet we think we "know" quite a bit of history.

Very true. There are many millions of historical events that we can't truly know happened. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many I've been taught actually didn't happen. And I didn't fight against the idea that Colombus' landing in the Americas was not the pleasant event for those already here that I'd been lead to believe. I don't have a problem with any in particular, however. Is there a universally believed historical event that you do not believe actually took place?

It is nearly universally believed that women throughout history were oppressed creatures until Emmeline Pankhurst and Susan B Anthony stood up and freed them. I now find that to be complete nonsense - contrary to common sense and the general witness of literature and history. We are taught history through prisms - the worldviews of historians - those chosen to educate us, most often in public schools. The grand breakthrough is when you discover what prisms were used to teach you, and you begin to meta-cognite - to re-evaluate what you were taught, as well as what was excluded from your education.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I rather think it IS important that Christ's incarnation happened at a definite time and place in history, in the middle of a great civilization, and not at some prehistoric time where anything at all could be claimed and nothing at all proven.

Heh. Well, of course, since I don't believe it did happen, I think the ultimate "anything at all" was claimed, and it is not proven. Are you suggesting that Christ's incarnation can be proven?

I think existing reports are at least as as reliable as the reports of the Punic Wars, if not more so. Yet we do not question the Punic Wars and curiously insist on teaching them in school. Again, it is very difficult to explain both the behavior of the claimed eyewitnesses as well as why this new faith spread so rapidly, among rich as well as poor and middle class, if the reports were false. But if true, it all makes perfect sense.

rusmeister wrote: Sure, plenty of honest and sincere people have died refusing to give up their beliefs. THAT is not what makes the Christian martyrs unique. Various other people who died for their beliefs did NOT in fact draw other people after them; did NOT make other people say, "I want what they have!" and jump on board the same boat leading them, very often, to the same death.

The members of al-Qaida would disagree with you. They certainly get more people to their cause with their martyrs. This has most certainly happened in other beliefs.

"in fact"...meh.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:It's also very difficult to notice a thesis when the errors are jumping out at you at such a rate.

But I will never understand why - after so much time; when so many people, of such different beliefs have negative opinions of him, for so many different reasons - defending Chesterton is more important than spreading the word of God. You act as though your self-worth is on the line.

Like I said, you interpret things that way. That's not how I see things. I don't consider the things you ascribe to me.
When you can describe me in a way that I can say "Yes, I DO think that", then maybe we can talk. Projection, Fist.

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say your self-worth is on the line. I said you act as though it is. There could be other reasons that more of your posts are devoted to telling us how extraordinary Chesterton is, and trying to change our opinions of him, than they are about any other single thing.

rusmeister wrote:As to errors, the rate is quite low, as I said. Please bring on the errors and we'll see how many are actually agreed-upon errors and which are disputable and which actually have to be acknowledged as not mistaken.

Again, no. No matter how hard and how often you try to convince everyone that Chesterton is the extraordinary person you think he is, I will not participate in the discussion.

rusmeister wrote:Let me try phrasing this more in a way that you could admit that you DO think this: In speaking of "your Truth" and "my Truth", either you do not believe in an overarching Truth that is neither mine or yours,

I believe in an overarching Truth. The one I've been talking aobut. I believe we all embrace whatever Truth works best for us. Whichever fulfills our needs, desires, fears... (Some are not fortunate enough to ever find one that fulfills them, and many of them live empty, or sad, or miserable lives as a result.)

rusmeister wrote:or you believe that that overarching Truth is unimportant; that it is not worth fighting over. I am speaking of overarching Truth, not "your Truth" or "my Truth". I am speaking specifically of a Truth that is NOT "mine".

Accurate, and not accurate. My Truth - the overarching Truth - is not "unimportant". It is not "not worth fighting over." It does not need fighting over. The goal of life is to be fulfilled. To find your place in the universe. To find the meaning of your life. Anyone can achieve these things without recognizing the overarching Truth. You do it through Orthodoxy. ali does it through paganism. Etc etc etc. Where is the need to fight?

Your Truth requires that all embrace it, and, so, you must fight. That does not mean that any Truth that does not require this is not as good as, or is of lesser stature than, yours. Yours demands absolutes. All must accept that meaninglessness must be viewed in such and such a way. All must believe that an overarching Truth must be accepted by all, and, so, fought for. But it is not so.

rusmeister wrote:Let me try to clarify on this. You are charging me with pedantry; that I am wasting time by making distinctions that make no difference. I say that the use of many words currently accepted today enable views of phenomenon, most especially regarding morality, to appear morally neutral or even positive when they are in fact negative. In short, they support a false view of morality, and therefore the distinctions ARE important. They are NOT meaningless or foolish distinctions as in your "pass the salt" example. If adultery IS a grave sin, then "cheating" is a gross understatement of its wrongness, and a word that accurately describes its true moral effect is called for - many of which are coarse words used by our ancestors.

Personally, I don't think there's anything worse one person can do to another than one spouse cheating on the other. I don't see it as morally neutral, much less positive. It is the greatest possible breaking of the most noble trust. In this situation*, I don't see the word "cheating" as anything less than evil.

OK, child abuse is worse. But, really, being second-worst is pretty darned bad.

*As opposed to, say, while playing Monopoly. And even then, it's pretty bad. Cheating of any sort is a vile thing to do to others and to yourself.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:When you speak of "a one and only way God wants me to live", you've really got to clarify. Lots of Orthodox Christians live in lots of different ways. My life varies considerably from that of my priest, or even from practically all of the parishioners of my church in a great many ways. If you mean "strive towards theosis", then I can say "Yeah". But there are a great many ways to do that.

And again. How is it that everybody else reading this understands my English, but you must tear everything apart to point out flaws? You have taught us MUCH more about how badly we all understand English, education, history, and religion than you have taught us about Jesus, Orthodoxy, or anything else I might suspect the Jesus you believe in would want taught.

Again, no. You use vague language that would paint me as a religious fanatic that wants everyone to live in a Puritan style with scarlet letters, and then expect me to roll over and take it. I insist on clarity. There is a great deal of variety in the lives of Orthodox Christians, and that they all acknowledge the same worship and the same Truth (and truths) does not erase that enormous variety. It does not create some kind of monotonous society of identical robots.

Again, you put words into my mouth. I didn't say "You see a certain worldview as the one and only way God wants you to live..." I said "IF..." If any of us think our exact way of living every moment of our lives is the one and only way God wants us to live every moment of our lives, then anything that opposes that is a sin.

In your case, I assume you believe there are many things that are to be done in one and only one way, but many other aspects of life are - within limits - up to the individual. Which explains why you and your priest do not spend every moment of your lives doing the exactly same things. But anything that opposes those aspects of life that are to be done in one and only one way are sin. Yes?

And you were the only person reading this who did not know that's what I meant in the first place. Why does an expert in English, and language in general, misunderstand more than those of us who don't know how to communicate correctly?

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:We have no way of establishing nearly all of the history that we know, except by accepting the authority of those who wrote the history. Certainly, there is historical scholarship, but even that only takes us so far and usually can't tell us whether the writer was peaking the truth or not. And yet we think we "know" quite a bit of history.

Very true. There are many millions of historical events that we can't truly know happened. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many I've been taught actually didn't happen. And I didn't fight against the idea that Colombus' landing in the Americas was not the pleasant event for those already here that I'd been lead to believe. I don't have a problem with any in particular, however. Is there a universally believed historical event that you do not believe actually took place?

It is nearly universally believed that women throughout history were oppressed creatures until Emmeline Pankhurst and Susan B Anthony stood up and freed them. I now find that to be complete nonsense - contrary to common sense and the general witness of literature and history. We are taught history through prisms - the worldviews of historians - those chosen to educate us, most often in public schools. The grand breakthrough is when you discover what prisms were used to teach you, and you begin to meta-cognite - to re-evaluate what you were taught, as well as what was excluded from your education.

Perhaps it is only in fashion to believe women were not oppressed throughout history.

However, I was asking for a historical event that you do not believe took place. The moonlanding? Waterloo? Did Genghis Khan exist? Whether Jesus or Hitler had a stronger impact on the Germany of today is another example of something that can be seen from different angles. Not so with the Battle of Hastings. Did it take place, or did it not?

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I rather think it IS important that Christ's incarnation happened at a definite time and place in history, in the middle of a great civilization, and not at some prehistoric time where anything at all could be claimed and nothing at all proven.

Heh. Well, of course, since I don't believe it did happen, I think the ultimate "anything at all" was claimed, and it is not proven. Are you suggesting that Christ's incarnation can be proven?

I think existing reports are at least as as reliable as the reports of the Punic Wars, if not more so. Yet we do not question the Punic Wars and curiously insist on teaching them in school. Again, it is very difficult to explain both the behavior of the claimed eyewitnesses as well as why this new faith spread so rapidly, among rich as well as poor and middle class, if the reports were false. But if true, it all makes perfect sense.

Whether or not people are too quick to accept that the Punic Wars are an actual historical event has no bearing on whether or not Christ's incarnation was a historical event.

Happy belated Thanksgiving, rus.

rusmeister wrote:

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I'd point to the Martyrs of the early Church (who differ critically from other "martyrs" such as suicide bombers, who are murderers and suicides, not martyrs and I don't accept them or Jim Jones-type people as proper understandings of the word)....

I've quoted your sentence in full...because you have totally ignored the point *I* made. My point was that Christianity is not unique in this case. Plenty of people of other faiths have died for their beliefs...

hi Ali,
I didn't ignore your point. I believe I proved it wrong. The Christian martyrs ARE unique.
Sure, plenty of honest and sincere people have died refusing to give up their beliefs. THAT is not what makes the Christian martyrs unique. Various other people who died for their beliefs did NOT in fact draw other people after them; did NOT make other people say, "I want what they have!" and jump on board the same boat leading them, very often, to the same death. That was MY point. They did not turn a minority into a majority, and convert the Roman Empire, or any other major nation (or even medium-size one for that matter.

So your criteria for a successful martyr, then, is not just someone who died for his/her beliefs, but whose death inspired others to convert? I seriously doubt that martyrdom was a determining factor in even a plurality of Christian conversions. Some who viewed the death of a martyr might have had their consciences tweaked. But I'm pretty sure there was no clamoring amongst the ancient Romans at the gates of the Coliseum: "I'm no pagan! I renounce Zeus and embrace Jesus! Let me into the ring to face the lions!"

No, I would suspect that the ancient Romans took one look at the zoo their ruling class had become and seized on the antithesis to that zoo -- which happened to be Christianity. (Much as Americans did in the waning months of Dubya's administration by voting for Obama. ) I think Christianity's rise was due, in large part, to being in the right place at the right time.

(And I am fascinated that you dismiss out-of-hand suicide bombers and al-Qaida recruits. I have to tell you that, purely in terms of behavior and belief, the only difference between the two is which religion they've chosen to die for. I guess if you die for Christianity you're a saint, but if you die for Islam you're a nut. JUST KIDDING!!)

rusmeister wrote:But facts do not always reveal truth - or even hold importance, whereas truth can certainly be more important than facts. Yes, 100% factual correctness helps argument. But the real question is, does the error destroy the argument or is it immaterial?

So the next time a journalist is criticized for being wrong, can I count on you to make this same argument on his/her behalf? I'll warn you right now, tho, that I don't think it will get you very far....

rusmeister wrote:The central point he made about paganism being dead really WAS true, though. It had been wiped from civilized observation, and NEVER had the popularity and growth that underground Christianity ever had - it really was only isolated pockets outside of civilized public life, that briefly appeared, and just as quickly died, even where your scholars point to the existence of something. There was no sustained life of paganism for 1,500 years in the West, and for 1,000 in the East (in the lands of Christendom).

We have been over this. Once Christianity took over, it held its ground at the point of a sword. It has ruled by fear in the West (the same way that Islam has ruled in the East). The "isolated pockets" you refer to disappeared (or perhaps went further underground) due to repression. Only with the loss of some of the Church's political power has it been acceptable for dissenters to speak up without fear of reprisal.

rusmeister wrote:I can't really expect that a confirmed pagan or agnostic could be convinced of those ideas as truth - but they DO make sense of the Christian view, even if you do disagree.

They make sense *if* you're already a Christian. This has been my point all along, rus. GKC is preaching to the choir. He is offering aid and comfort to those who think as he does. But his words are insulting to those of other faiths -- else why did Jews accuse him of antisemitism? Sure, he said he didn't mean it that way. And I believe him, as far as it goes. But clearly he's been setting non-Christians' teeth on edge for decades....

Anyway, you've made my point for me. If you're trying to save souls, then I'd recommend Zahir's method. (And btw, good post, Zahir. )

Zahir wrote:Were I in that position I would say to my atheist friend "I am Orthodox because it answers some needs and questions." Given the chance I would explain my attraction to Orthodoxy, how I see my relationship to it, what I myself understand of its teachings. Were my atheist friend to consent, I would bring him (or her) to a ceremony (Easter Midnight Service is my fave) and encourage them to enter into the feeling of the event. But I would also tell them I cannot prove my faith any more than anyone can prove my pet cat Calvin loved me, or that lasagna tastes good (the latter being a matter of opinion of course). My friend would need to make their own decisions based upon experience.

aliantha wrote:Happy belated Thanksgiving, rus.

rusmeister wrote:

aliantha wrote: I've quoted your sentence in full...because you have totally ignored the point *I* made. My point was that Christianity is not unique in this case. Plenty of people of other faiths have died for their beliefs...

hi Ali,
I didn't ignore your point. I believe I proved it wrong. The Christian martyrs ARE unique.
Sure, plenty of honest and sincere people have died refusing to give up their beliefs. THAT is not what makes the Christian martyrs unique. Various other people who died for their beliefs did NOT in fact draw other people after them; did NOT make other people say, "I want what they have!" and jump on board the same boat leading them, very often, to the same death. That was MY point. They did not turn a minority into a majority, and convert the Roman Empire, or any other major nation (or even medium-size one for that matter.

So your criteria for a successful martyr, then, is not just someone who died for his/her beliefs, but whose death inspired others to convert? I seriously doubt that martyrdom was a determining factor in even a plurality of Christian conversions. Some who viewed the death of a martyr might have had their consciences tweaked. But I'm pretty sure there was no clamoring amongst the ancient Romans at the gates of the Coliseum: "I'm no pagan! I renounce Zeus and embrace Jesus! Let me into the ring to face the lions!"

No, I would suspect that the ancient Romans took one look at the zoo their ruling class had become and seized on the antithesis to that zoo -- which happened to be Christianity. (Much as Americans did in the waning months of Dubya's administration by voting for Obama. ) I think Christianity's rise was due, in large part, to being in the right place at the right time.

(And I am fascinated that you dismiss out-of-hand suicide bombers and al-Qaida recruits. I have to tell you that, purely in terms of behavior and belief, the only difference between the two is which religion they've chosen to die for. I guess if you die for Christianity you're a saint, but if you die for Islam you're a nut. JUST KIDDING!!)

rusmeister wrote:But facts do not always reveal truth - or even hold importance, whereas truth can certainly be more important than facts. Yes, 100% factual correctness helps argument. But the real question is, does the error destroy the argument or is it immaterial?

So the next time a journalist is criticized for being wrong, can I count on you to make this same argument on his/her behalf? I'll warn you right now, tho, that I don't think it will get you very far....

rusmeister wrote:The central point he made about paganism being dead really WAS true, though. It had been wiped from civilized observation, and NEVER had the popularity and growth that underground Christianity ever had - it really was only isolated pockets outside of civilized public life, that briefly appeared, and just as quickly died, even where your scholars point to the existence of something. There was no sustained life of paganism for 1,500 years in the West, and for 1,000 in the East (in the lands of Christendom).

We have been over this. Once Christianity took over, it held its ground at the point of a sword. It has ruled by fear in the West (the same way that Islam has ruled in the East). The "isolated pockets" you refer to disappeared (or perhaps went further underground) due to repression. Only with the loss of some of the Church's political power has it been acceptable for dissenters to speak up without fear of reprisal.

rusmeister wrote:I can't really expect that a confirmed pagan or agnostic could be convinced of those ideas as truth - but they DO make sense of the Christian view, even if you do disagree.

They make sense *if* you're already a Christian. This has been my point all along, rus. GKC is preaching to the choir. He is offering aid and comfort to those who think as he does. But his words are insulting to those of other faiths -- else why did Jews accuse him of antisemitism? Sure, he said he didn't mean it that way. And I believe him, as far as it goes. But clearly he's been setting non-Christians' teeth on edge for decades....

Anyway, you've made my point for me. If you're trying to save souls, then I'd recommend Zahir's method. (And btw, good post, Zahir. )

Zahir wrote:Were I in that position I would say to my atheist friend "I am Orthodox because it answers some needs and questions." Given the chance I would explain my attraction to Orthodoxy, how I see my relationship to it, what I myself understand of its teachings. Were my atheist friend to consent, I would bring him (or her) to a ceremony (Easter Midnight Service is my fave) and encourage them to enter into the feeling of the event. But I would also tell them I cannot prove my faith any more than anyone can prove my pet cat Calvin loved me, or that lasagna tastes good (the latter being a matter of opinion of course). My friend would need to make their own decisions based upon experience.

Well, I'm not going to go 25 rounds with you.
Much of what you say makes no sense to me, such as Romans "taking one look..." because Christianity was mostly illegal for almost 300 years. That's a heckuva long "right time".
Your exaggeration of a point, positing people demanding to be martyred, ignores the very fact that the martyrs did NOT seek death as such, and thought life definitely worth living - only if die they must, they had something better to look forward to. So your image is caricature. People inspired by the martyrs were baptized and accepted into the local church - and they certainly risked a lot to do so during much of the Christian underground period. But they did not beg to be martyred. A lot of the details are preserved in hagiography - but I don't guess that many of you are familiar with that.

I said extremely specifically that there is an enormous difference - that the Martyrs neither killed others nor sought to kill themselves - and that makes ALL the difference between them and everyone you would equate them to. We are justly offended at the suicide bomber - who is quite literally a suicide-murderer, and at the Jim Jones' crowd, who committed suicide and encouraged others to do so. We could not possibly be so offended at the Christian martyr - who neither advocates his own death, and certainly not that of others.

If you can't grasp that difference, then it's "Kirk out". There is nothing I could say to you that I could reasonably hope that you could understand.

If I found any modern journalist as much of a genius as GKC, as witty and humorous, and striking at central truths, then, yes, I would defend the occasional factual error. The thing we should love in the end is Truth, not facts, as important as they are - IF we can interpret them correctly.

When I said "make sense", I didn't mean "make you agree". I meant "make understandable as something a sensible person could accept, if they did not disagree."

I frankly don't think I can save souls. I think my own self in need of saving. But we do have different gifts, and knowledge, and Zahir may or may not be able to give you something in one way. My humble abilities stretch in different directions that some may or may not find helpful. We do what we can - the rest is up to God (and your own free will, of course).