Fact and Truth

[rusmeister]

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Fist,
I give up.


I don't misunderstand. I just see how your understandings, as expressed would paint me into a corner that I do not accept. Language can be used to reveal - or conceal - or merely cloud - truth. I object to language use which does the latter two. Now that I find that some popular usage actually does that, I refuse to use it - or have it be used against me in rhetoric - because it is fundamentally deceptive.

Your request for a specific historical event - that excludes general historical teaching - is aimed at dissing my point - which is about general historical understandings that are taught via the selection of actual historical events and the exclusion of others, as well as of other evidence that refutes the view that the historian wishes to deliver. I offered a concrete example - but you determined to belittle and essentially ignore it. In this case, I don't dispute the facts - but I certainly dispute both their choice (and emphasis placed on their historical importance) and the interpretation - the spin commonly put on them, and from which the selection of facts starts.

And finally, I make a critical point about history and historical events that you summarily dismiss. Whether we accept any historical event, fact or concept as true on the basis of authority that we accept has EVERYTHING to do with whether we accept the historicity of Christ and even the reports of His resurrection. It has all the bearing in the world. Only the latter report includes a miraculous event that you have a dogma against, and so, for you, it cannot be true and that report disqualifies it from having the same authority as the reports of the life of Christ, or even of the Punic Wars. But if one does not have such a dogma and finds the reporting authority to be in every other way completely reliable, then it is logical to accept it on the same grounds as we accept the Punic Wars or anything else.

If I thought you were asking honest questions and seeking to understand, I would really bother to try to explain. But I don't think that, and am now quite sure that debating you really is a waste of time.

I'll still answer questions that I believe to be honest inquiry, but I'm done debating you. I'm still grateful for many of our earlier exchanges, though.

[Zahir]

-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.

I feed compelled to point out that while the Orthodox Church does indeed believe in sin, that God doesn't want us to sin, and that the definition of sin is a valid/important subject we do not in fact see it as central to the Faith as do (for example) Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. I've found this tenet is the part most folks have trouble grasping, that God is not sitting in as Judge, Jury and Executioner every single action.

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.

Quite right, too.

[aliantha]

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.

And that would make Joan of Arc...?

And it would make the Crusaders...?

What I'm trying to say here is that people are people, all over the world, regardless of which religion they espouse. If someone is looking for a hero to emulate -- a hero who's not just talented or well-dressed or rich or whatever, but one who lives his/her life more truthfully than anybody else -- then a person who dies nobly for a cause is going to be a good candidate. That's just human nature. And once one person does something, others around him/her are more likely to do it, too, even if it's something distasteful. (I've seen this in action while doing "man on the street" interviews. If I asked one person to stop for a second and talk to me, and that person said no, then the two or three people right behind that person were also likely to say no. But if I waited for a moment, then asked someone who hadn't been nearby when the original person said no, I was much more likely to get a "yes.")

What you're doing is taking a type of behavior that is intrinsic to human nature and extrapolating the Hand of God from it. Maybe God *was* involved, but probably not the way you mean.

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."

Okay, let's set aside the question of whether his facts are faulty. Let's instead talk about whether his reasoning makes sense. And I suppose it does -- *if* I were willing to accept his premise that the Christian God is the only one there is. Like I said, he's preaching to the choir. He's assuming that his reader is already predisposed to believe in the Christian God, and is simply giving him ammunition against the unbelievers out there who want to lead him astray from the True Path.

From what I've read of GKC and Lewis, they both do the same thing: they describe something of the human condition and then leap to the conclusion that God has ordained it to be so. I've linked in the past to the Far Side cartoon where a mathematician gets stuck in a proof and writes on the blackboard, "Then a miracle occurs," and starts over with an equation that leads to his desired result. That's exactly what Christian apologists do! They reason themselves to a certain point, and then they say, "Then God worked in his mysterious ways," and poof! their conclusion is reached.

And what is up with the term "Christian apologist" anyhow? I've never read anything apologetic from either of these guys.

I can't tell you what a relief it is to believe in deities who *don't* claim to be omnipotent or omniscient or both. All of these pesky questions about why God does X, Y and Z to his creation, and about free will v. determinism, and (for Western Christianity) how to behave to get into heaven (assuming your name is already in the Book, which is by no means certain in some denominations) -- they're all meaningless if your god doesn't claim absolute dominion over everything.

[Fist and Faith]

rus, the only truly important part of my last post is that one worldview is not necessarily inferior to another worldview just because it does not demand to be the only one. They put it very well in The Matrix Reloaded:

Lock: Goddamnit, Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!

Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.

My worldview does not have the same requirements yours does. My Truth doesn't have to be the only Truth, and doesn't have to be fought for or over, in order to be important. You don't have to agree. It's not necessary that you believe mine is equal to yours, or that a worldview can be valid if it does not demand to be the only one. I'm not trying to convince you of either thing. I'm just telling you why this particular approach is not working for you. You can endlessly repeat that I do not believe Truth is important, and that it is a fish to be thrown out. But I do not believe that. This criticism is not valid in my eyes/my worldview. Basically, you're preaching to the choir. If you want to convince me that my worldview is wrong, you need to try something other than telling me that my worldview should not be something that can be thrown away. I do not believe it is.


But you are misunderstanding me about the historical event. I'm not willing to assume everything I was taught is a historical event actually is. I'm wondering if there are any particular ones you have in mind.


Regarding language... Perhaps I jumped the gun in the case of cheating/betraying. I don't see "cheating" as a euphemism. I see it as one of the worst things one human can do to another. But you were the one who introduced the word into the conversation, and, if you think it doesn't capture the extent of the evil, then I should have let it go. I'm sorry for starting crap over it.

[Fist and Faith]

-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.

I feed compelled to point out that while the Orthodox Church does indeed believe in sin, that God doesn't want us to sin, and that the definition of sin is a valid/important subject we do not in fact see it as central to the Faith as do (for example) Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. I've found this tenet is the part most folks have trouble grasping, that God is not sitting in as Judge, Jury and Executioner every single action.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not saying each sin is judged to be a sin by God, on a case by case basis. I'm saying that, if God say, "Do X.", and you don't do X; or if God says, "Don't do Y.", and you do Y - then you have sinned. God doesn't need to declare it a sin each time. At least that's how it would make sense to me. Is that what you believe?



Backing up a page.

Were I in that position I would say to my atheist friend "I am Orthodox because it answers some needs and questions."

I would hope so! How could it be otherwise, eh?

Given the chance I would explain my attraction to Orthodoxy, how I see my relationship to it, what I myself understand of its teachings.

As you are doing. Very cool.

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.

If my friend wanted to share something important to him/her with me, I would go. I've done it often enough. When the baby son of my next-door neighbor, who was a minister, was baptised. When my brother was ordained as a minister. Etc. I'm happy that, despite not being a believer, someone wants me to be there to share in this important moment for them.

And I can be pleased that it brings them joy, if that counts as entering 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.

Exactly. And nobody thinks you can prove your faith anyway, so you'd lose credibility right off the bat if you said you could.

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.

Even if you were not theologically very liberal, encouraging someone to feel compassion is surely a better approach than telling them what their flaws are. After compassion is agreed upon, maybe throw in something else. Heh.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Compassion is reported to be the theme behind most Christian religions. But its always compassion in the long view. Not saying OCs are this way, but I've come across some super-fundie Christian zealots that are total a$$holes to living people, at the same time they profess their love for the souls within. Their compassion is in the form of the sword -- 'tough love', your soul *will* be saved, whether you want it to be or not... I hope for their religions' sakes that they are misrepresenting their chosen paths.

How to properly exhibit compassion for fellow sinners is a difficult path to walk, since our 'fellow sinners' don't always agree with the earnestly helpful (read 'busybody') Christian that the lives they lead are False, not of-God, and terrible paths toward permanent darkness. Some people just think it's Monday, and have to first be convinced that they are on the brink of total spiritual failure. That's when the Salvation part of the Script(ure) kicks in.

So lets ask some questions that are variations on a theme, but speaking in terms of Facts/Truth:

Is it or is it not a Fact that most (if not all) Orthodox Christians are taught to believe that homosexual acts are acts that are against God's will?

True or False: The Orthodox Church, as with many fundamental / traditionalist Christian institutions (or whatever term you prefer), teaches that homosexual acts are acts that are against God's will?

If the Church does teach this, what is the basis for this teaching? Official Church dogma? Widely held tradition? A Tradition -- (not sure if there is a difference between 't' and 'T' here)?

If the Church does teach this, and there is a citable source for the teaching, is there an explanation given as to the reason why?

If a mod wants to move this post to another, that's fine. These threads seem destined to Voltron together most unsatisfactorily anyway...

dw

[rusmeister]

-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.

I feed compelled to point out that while the Orthodox Church does indeed believe in sin, that God doesn't want us to sin, and that the definition of sin is a valid/important subject we do not in fact see it as central to the Faith as do (for example) Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. I've found this tenet is the part most folks have trouble grasping, that God is not sitting in as Judge, Jury and Executioner every single action.

While I can't agree about sin not being central to the Faith - the very first fact is that we must come to realize that we are Fallen, and in need of salvation, and that it is our sin that separates us from God (thus I think Zahir misspoke) - he is quite right that we do not hold the juridical view of western Christianity, and a lot of the referencing of sin here probably has western understandings in mind. Sin is seen much more as illness and healing, and not at all like the breaking of arbitrary laws. The understanding of 'laws' and 'rules' in Orthodoxy is, as I said, along the same lines as safety guidelines in an owner's manual and they really ARE meant to help the person, in the same way that a parent imposes rules, not out of a desire to dominate children, but to see them grow up healthy and safe - the difference being that we voluntarily accept this parent-child relation with the Church when we discover that it really is so much wiser than we are (a hard thing for the pride of the individual to stand - who wants to be wiser than anyone else concerning himself). Here I'd refer to the devil's conversation with Berlioz in the opening chapters of "The Master and Margarita", if anyone is familiar with it (a great book, by the way, even though it is rather un-Christian (requires a separate thread). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_and_Margarita
the point being where the devil (Woland) says

'But here is a question that is troubling me: if there is no God, then,
one may ask, who governs human life and, in general, the whole order of
things on earth?'
'Man governs it himself,' Homeless* angrily hastened to reply to this
admittedly none-too-clear question. `Pardon me,' the stranger responded
gently, 'but in order to govern, one needs, after all, to have a precise
plan for certain, at least somewhat decent, length of time. Allow me to ask
you, then, how man can govern, if he is not only deprived of the opportunity
of making a plan for at least some ridiculously short period - well, say, a
thousand years - but cannot even vouch for his own tomorrow?

*the last name of one of the characters

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.

Quite right, too.

I echo, "Quite right" - from the standpoint of the Church and faith.

But that does not mean believers, as members of civil society, should not vote and attempt to shape their society, and possibly even impose laws for the benefit of all on those that object, just as unbelievers propose doing.

The individual advocating a political stand - if he feels that he can and should do so - is simply not the Faith or the Church. It is the individual. So don't go taking what I said in the Tank as things that the Church would impose by force. It's what Iwould impose, if I were king. It is certainly guided by what I believe - my worldview. But for the most part, it is not mandated by my worldview (except, arguably, the issue of abortion). I am free to not advocate it and to go live like a monk in the desert, if I don't have a family to care for.

In the end, it is only the monk in the desert who does not seek to impose beliefs. It's interesting to me that some people think they can vote, and yet are somehow NOT imposing their beliefs (if the vote has any real power, of course). It is plain that all political action involves the imposition of belief, and so taking a perceived high ground that one is voting and yet not doing so is unwitting hypocrisy.

[rusmeister]

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.

And that would make Joan of Arc...?

And it would make the Crusaders...?

What I'm trying to say here is that people are people, all over the world, regardless of which religion they espouse. If someone is looking for a hero to emulate -- a hero who's not just talented or well-dressed or rich or whatever, but one who lives his/her life more truthfully than anybody else -- then a person who dies nobly for a cause is going to be a good candidate. That's just human nature. And once one person does something, others around him/her are more likely to do it, too, even if it's something distasteful. (I've seen this in action while doing "man on the street" interviews. If I asked one person to stop for a second and talk to me, and that person said no, then the two or three people right behind that person were also likely to say no. But if I waited for a moment, then asked someone who hadn't been nearby when the original person said no, I was much more likely to get a "yes.")

What you're doing is taking a type of behavior that is intrinsic to human nature and extrapolating the Hand of God from it. Maybe God *was* involved, but probably not the way you mean.

It's notable that the examples you offer precisely do NOT fit into the criteria that I cited as making the Christian martyrs unique. Consider that Joan of Arc is a saint in the Catholic Church, but not in the Orthodox Church. Joan of Arc DID advocate a particular kingdom of this world, and violence in its name. The Crusaders all the more. My point that the martrys proposed killing no one, including themselves, stands.

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."

Okay, let's set aside the question of whether his facts are faulty. Let's instead talk about whether his reasoning makes sense. And I suppose it does -- *if* I were willing to accept his premise that the Christian God is the only one there is. Like I said, he's preaching to the choir. He's assuming that his reader is already predisposed to believe in the Christian God, and is simply giving him ammunition against the unbelievers out there who want to lead him astray from the True Path.

From what I've read of GKC and Lewis, they both do the same thing: they describe something of the human condition and then leap to the conclusion that God has ordained it to be so. I've linked in the past to the Far Side cartoon where a mathematician gets stuck in a proof and writes on the blackboard, "Then a miracle occurs," and starts over with an equation that leads to his desired result. That's exactly what Christian apologists do! They reason themselves to a certain point, and then they say, "Then God worked in his mysterious ways," and poof! their conclusion is reached.

And what is up with the term "Christian apologist" anyhow? I've never read anything apologetic from either of these guys.

I can't tell you what a relief it is to believe in deities who *don't* claim to be omnipotent or omniscient or both. All of these pesky questions about why God does X, Y and Z to his creation, and about free will v. determinism, and (for Western Christianity) how to behave to get into heaven (assuming your name is already in the Book, which is by no means certain in some denominations) -- they're all meaningless if your god doesn't claim absolute dominion over everything.

they describe something of the human condition and then leap to the conclusion that God has ordained it to be so.

This is simply not true. False, false, false. It could be said only a little more justly about Chesterton. Lewis spent a good decade and then several years gradually becoming convinced in spite of his many objections - which many of you still have.
When I defend these people, I defend what they believed, which is largely what I believe. When I defend them, though, aware of their human failings and limitations, I sometimes feel like I'm trying to defend Sigmund Freud or Charles Darwin from people who either refuse to read them, or say, OK, I'll read a little bit". Lewis's autobiographical "Surprised by Joy" ought to put paid to that impression. The idea of leaping to a conclusion as you see it is very far from the make-up of those men. (I'll say as a sideline that Hopko's podcasts have definitely interested me in reading more about Darwin...)

All of those "pesky questions" DO address real questions of humanity not limited to humanity under an omnipotent God. How is it that our thoughts are not merely those of a bewildered ape? How is it that we have a will that is ours at all? I see no reason why a pagan cannot ask these questions just as reasonably as a Christian. Indeed, the question is more "why NOT ask them?" "Why are they pesky?" Since I think Western Christianity got it wrong starting well over a thousand years ago, I don't think it fair to project the ideas developed there onto what I do accept.

[Avatar]

By "or" do you mean that some truths can be one or more but not the others? Because if so, I agree. Transcendental truth is absolutely not objective, it is a subjective, perceptual experience.

Then how can it be absolute? Or do you just mean "absolute to you?

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

Agreed. And therefore a subjective truth.

--A

[Cambo]

By "or" do you mean that some truths can be one or more but not the others? Because if so, I agree. Transcendental truth is absolutely not objective, it is a subjective, perceptual experience.

Then how can it be absolute? Or do you just mean "absolute to you?

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

Agreed. And therefore a subjective truth.

--A

Yes, I do mean absolute to me, and anyone who experiences it. The genuine transcendental or mystical is experience is by its nature absolute and all-encompassing. At the higher stages, the ego itself disappears. That, for me, is about as absolute as you can get. But of course, it cannot be an absolute truth for someone who has not had the experience. Also, some people do have the experience, and choose not to interpret it as "truth," so that too is relative. But the interpretation of the experience is a choice, and subject to relativity, whereas the experience itself (for me, the truth itself), is not.

Does that make sense? Mysticism is a difficult topic to put into rational words.

[Fist and Faith]

When I defend these people, I defend what they believed, which is largely what I believe. When I defend them, though, aware of their human failings and limitations, I sometimes feel like I'm trying to defend Sigmund Freud or Charles Darwin from people who either refuse to read them, or say, OK, I'll read a little bit".

If I was defending Darwin from someone who refused to read him, or who read only a little and disagreed with it, I would not simply tell him/her to keep reading, saying that reading huge numbers of pages will clarify all. I would not refuse to try to explain Darwin's thoughts to the person. I would start small. "Do you believe life on our planet today exists exactly as it always has? Do you believe all of the species we see around us are exactly as they always were? And, while some species have become extinct, no new species have appeared since life began?" If the answer is Yes, I would ask about various fossils (as well as how the person thinks stone is formed), radiometric dating. If the answer is No, I would ask what specific objections to Darwin the person has.

In short, if I wanted this person to understand Darwin, I wouldn't demand that they put in extra effort beyond trying to read him; I would put in the extra effort.

The individual advocating a political stand - if he feels that he can and should do so - is simply not the Faith or the Church. It is the individual. So don't go taking what I said in the Tank as things that the Church would impose by force. It's what Iwould impose, if I were king.

As I've said, I have no desire to talk you out of your faith. I just need to keep you from imposing them on me.

In the end, it is only the monk in the desert who does not seek to impose beliefs. It's interesting to me that some people think they can vote, and yet are somehow NOT imposing their beliefs (if the vote has any real power, of course). It is plain that all political action involves the imposition of belief, and so taking a perceived high ground that one is voting and yet not doing so is unwitting hypocrisy.

There are, of course, those who would force various aspects of their worldview onto all if they could. You just admitted that you are one of them. But there's a difference between forcing, or not allowing, people to do certain things, and forcing people to allow all to live by their own beliefs.

[Zahir]

There is a lot of nuance that maybe needs more attention here.

For one, the image of "forcing me to live by your beliefs" is rather distant from "only the monk in the desert...does not seek to impose beliefs". The former refers to an attitude of self-righteousness, a habit of belief in one's own answers to the point of dismissing all disagreement. The latter more accurately refers to the compromises that occur when human beings work in groups. Simply calling both the same misses the vital differences between the two (not unlike that between Truth and Fact).

Honestly, the latter implies that since human interaction involves our impacting one another, that therefore any form of such is okay save perhaps to the point of using unauthorized force. But is that really true? Is it not at least deceitful to tell lies, to distort the truth (not quite the same thing), to drown out dissent with your own stridency, to openly encourage others to obey authority no matter what, to discount points of view without even considering them? None of these involve force per se. All can be used to ultimately authorize force, though. Have done, many many times.

I myself don't see much difference however (although some, certainly) between personally claiming to have all the important answers or claiming to have found a source for all the important answers.

[rusmeister]

There is a lot of nuance that maybe needs more attention here.

For one, the image of "forcing me to live by your beliefs" is rather distant from "only the monk in the desert...does not seek to impose beliefs". The former refers to an attitude of self-righteousness, a habit of belief in one's own answers to the point of dismissing all disagreement. The latter more accurately refers to the compromises that occur when human beings work in groups. Simply calling both the same misses the vital differences between the two (not unlike that between Truth and Fact).

Honestly, the latter implies that since human interaction involves our impacting one another, that therefore any form of such is okay save perhaps to the point of using unauthorized force. But is that really true? Is it not at least deceitful to tell lies, to distort the truth (not quite the same thing), to drown out dissent with your own stridency, to openly encourage others to obey authority no matter what, to discount points of view without even considering them? None of these involve force per se. All can be used to ultimately authorize force, though. Have done, many many times.

I myself don't see much difference however (although some, certainly) between personally claiming to have all the important answers or claiming to have found a source for all the important answers.

Hi, Zahir,
I think Fist and I were talking about something slightly different. (Maybe Fist thinks not? If so, that underscores what I mean about a communication problem. Only I am not so much of a "Rain Man" that the entire problem of incorrectly communicating my own thoughts to some people over 4-5 years could lay entirely in my own lap.)
What I think we were talking about is what a lay person in civil society would or should advocate for his society in terms of law (and NOT faith)...or not. Should a believer participate in civil society? Or should they simply withdraw from it? That was how I posed it. You seem to be projecting your own interpretations of myself on to that and read a completely different - and inaccurate - dichotomy into it.

So a believer who votes for one thing or another - who seeks to impose a particular view with force of law - is NOT being self-righteous in doing so. And they of course DO dismiss disagreement, because they have already made up their minds. There is nothing at all wrong in dismissing agreement if you have actually seriously and honestly examined it and coming to a conclusion - at which point you dismiss the examined arguments.

The monk in the desert doesn't "compromise" with anyone. He simply surrenders to his God and seeks to hear His voice. Something I really envy at times.

So I'm not missing anything there. You're off on some other tangent.

I DO see a difference between claiming to have the answers and claiming to have the source - the former actually implies that you have all the answers that matter personally, and could mean that you obtained them on your own merit. The latter admits that you yourself are not the authority or source and acknowledges that one must accept the source (or Source).

[aliantha]

they describe something of the human condition and then leap to the conclusion that God has ordained it to be so.

This is simply not true. False, false, false.

Without the texts in front of me, I can't cite specific examples. But rest assured that I found multiple instances of precisely this, in both GKC and Lewis.

I can't tell you what a relief it is to believe in deities who *don't* claim to be omnipotent or omniscient or both. All of these pesky questions about why God does X, Y and Z to his creation, and about free will v. determinism, and (for Western Christianity) how to behave to get into heaven (assuming your name is already in the Book, which is by no means certain in some denominations) -- they're all meaningless if your god doesn't claim absolute dominion over everything.

<snip>

All of those "pesky questions" DO address real questions of humanity not limited to humanity under an omnipotent God. How is it that our thoughts are not merely those of a bewildered ape? How is it that we have a will that is ours at all? I see no reason why a pagan cannot ask these questions just as reasonably as a Christian. Indeed, the question is more "why NOT ask them?" "Why are they pesky?" Since I think Western Christianity got it wrong starting well over a thousand years ago, I don't think it fair to project the ideas developed there onto what I do accept.

Not quite sure what you mean by that last sentence....

Perhaps what I should have said is that pagans might well ask questions about how humans got here, in this form, and why we behave the way we do. The difference is that we don't pin total responsibility for the answers on any one god or goddess.

I'll use, as an example, the debate over free will v. determinism. And I would ask at the outset: PLEASE, I beg of you, do not post your religion's answers to the question here. That is not the point of my example. Please just read to the end. Thanks.

Now then: The Christian God is said to be omniscient. Plus, he lives outside of time, in a way -- he knows what's going to happen in our future, perhaps because he lives every moment in history concurrently. (Or at least I've heard the phenomenon explained to me this way. There are likely other explanations.)

But as soon as you posit a God who knows the future, it immediately begs the free-will-v.-determinism question: if God knows what we're going to do, why bother to give us free will? Do we have free will at all? And so on.

Pagans, otoh, don't have any comparable deities. You've got your riddle-speaking oracular deities, to be sure, and the odd two- or three-faced god (who might be facing into the past and the future, or who might just be facing north and south, who knows? ). But there's nobody, to my knowledge, who claims to know everything, all the time. Even in a pantheon with a head god -- Thor for the Norse, Zeus for the Romans (or was Zeus the Greek guy? I get the names confused...) -- he doesn't claim to know everything that's going to happen. Certainly the Wiccans' Goddess doesn't have the same attributes as the Christian God; omniscience* isn't her bailiwick. So there's no anguish in Paganism over whether humans have free will -- it's clear to Pagans that we do. And anyway, it doesn't matter in terms of eternal salvation because for Pagans, *everybody* goes to the pleasant afterlife. (Well, the Norse have one heaven for warriors and another for everybody else, but neither one equates to the Christian Hell.)

Anyway, that's what I meant by "pesky questions" -- these eternal debates spawned by conflicts inherent in Christian dogma. You just don't have that in Paganism.

*(It just struck me that "omniscience" is "omni" + "science". Which means "science" is "knowledge", yes? Fascinating...)

[rusmeister]

When I defend these people, I defend what they believed, which is largely what I believe. When I defend them, though, aware of their human failings and limitations, I sometimes feel like I'm trying to defend Sigmund Freud or Charles Darwin from people who either refuse to read them, or say, OK, I'll read a little bit".

If I was defending Darwin from someone who refused to read him, or who read only a little and disagreed with it, I would not simply tell him/her to keep reading, saying that reading huge numbers of pages will clarify all. I would not refuse to try to explain Darwin's thoughts to the person. I would start small. "Do you believe life on our planet today exists exactly as it always has? Do you believe all of the species we see around us are exactly as they always were? And, while some species have become extinct, no new species have appeared since life began?" If the answer is Yes, I would ask about various fossils (as well as how the person thinks stone is formed), radiometric dating. If the answer is No, I would ask what specific objections to Darwin the person has.

In short, if I wanted this person to understand Darwin, I wouldn't demand that they put in extra effort beyond trying to read him; I would put in the extra effort.

Fist, after these past several years...

I certainly HAVE poured copious amounts of my own effort into explaining things to you (and others). I do NOT demand acceptance as true, but I do think you ought to have understood (while disagreeing) more than you seem to do so after all this time.

My conclusion is that what has been understood has been rejected out of hand, with the unfortunate side effects that you think you know some things about Chesterton and Lewis - and Orthodoxy - when I continually get non-understanding from you.

That goes ditto for everyone who complains about my posting comments and quotes from C+L. They complain - but they have read little to nothing, and have no context and very little understanding - mostly because they don't WANT to understand it. Anyone who wanted to understand it - especially intelligent people in their 30's, 40's and 50's - could, if they tried. And I think a few HAVE understood a little - but I should stress the "little" part. It's like the Adam Gopniks who periodically charge GKC with antisemitism. They've read something of his - a quote, a page or even a book - and they haven't gone on to read what clarifies and transforms the understandings - and they draw fast conclusions based on their modern understandings and contexts - in a near total ignorance of the context of his time, place and worldview. That's what I think it is with you guys. So I'm withdrawing. "He who hath ears to hear, let him hear." But I'll still answer honest questions, though. I just think that after over four years, there's not much I can say to you - unless you ever really want to know.

The individual advocating a political stand - if he feels that he can and should do so - is simply not the Faith or the Church. It is the individual. So don't go taking what I said in the Tank as things that the Church would impose by force. It's what Iwould impose, if I were king.

As I've said, I have no desire to talk you out of your faith. I just need to keep you from imposing them on me.

I understand. That's why I withdrew from the Tank - never wanted to be there, anyway. It's the least important thing to talk about, and I regret that it took me so long to figure that out. I still think what I think, but I don't hold modern politics masquerading as democracy throughout the world in high regard, and don't think that our opinions there will either persuade anyone or accomplish anything. And they are dependent on worldviews, and it's absolutely useless talking with people who think that they aren't - the idea (that they aren't) is just plain irrational.

So what then? If you don't understand my faith and worldview, you could hardly understand my politics, such as they are. AS long as you are convinced that your worldview is right - or in your terms, works for you, it's pretty useless talking at all. You could only talk to me if I came to perceive that faith doesn't work, and I could only talk to you if you perceived that a lack of faith doesn't work.

In the end, it is only the monk in the desert who does not seek to impose beliefs. It's interesting to me that some people think they can vote, and yet are somehow NOT imposing their beliefs (if the vote has any real power, of course). It is plain that all political action involves the imposition of belief, and so taking a perceived high ground that one is voting and yet not doing so is unwitting hypocrisy.

There are, of course, those who would force various aspects of their worldview onto all if they could. You just admitted that you are one of them. But there's a difference between forcing, or not allowing, people to do certain things, and forcing people to allow all to live by their own beliefs.
[/quote]

It seems self-evident to me that all political action is aimed at forcing - at imposition. If we vote for one thing, and against another, (and if our vote carries real power) then we are imposing a view on a minority, however tiny, that objects. If the vote has no power, but we think it does, then we are still, in our own minds, imposing force. Of course, any actual action taken - the outlawing of this or that, the mandatory requirement of this or that, IS imposing force. So I say that you, and everyone who votes, is one of those who force.

One curious thing, though - you seem to think that I would impose Orthodox faith by law. This is simply not true. It is absolutelynot true. I think there are only a few issues where I have said that I would impose law. I do think everyone should believe what I believe - that everyone should know what I know - including the part that I want to know more - but I don't think that faith can be legislated. It must be accepted. but a civil society CAN be required to do certain things, or have them forbidden - which is all that I proposed - and that is something quite different from accepting faith. (Accepting faith would help in accepting the ideas tremendously, as the person accepting the faith discovers that they are not gloomy Forbiddings but boundaries that both keep us safe, and allow us to be completely free within them, as parents build fences to protect their children from wandering off and being lost, or being snatched by a pervert. As something good, not evil.)

[rusmeister]

By "or" do you mean that some truths can be one or more but not the others? Because if so, I agree. Transcendental truth is absolutely not objective, it is a subjective, perceptual experience.

Then how can it be absolute? Or do you just mean "absolute to you?

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

Agreed. And therefore a subjective truth.

--A

Yes, I do mean absolute to me, and anyone who experiences it. The genuine transcendental or mystical is experience is by its nature absolute and all-encompassing. At the higher stages, the ego itself disappears. That, for me, is about as absolute as you can get. But of course, it cannot be an absolute truth for someone who has not had the experience. Also, some people do have the experience, and choose not to interpret it as "truth," so that too is relative. But the interpretation of the experience is a choice, and subject to relativity, whereas the experience itself (for me, the truth itself), is not.

Does that make sense? Mysticism is a difficult topic to put into rational words.

Hi Cambo,
I think that makes sense to me.
My comments on it are that a lack of experience is not the only thing that could cause people to deny it as absolute truth, They might also do so on the basis of authority accepted and teaching of a different view.

It seems (because we so often misunderstand each other's thoughts and intent on the 'net) that when you speak of "ego disappearing", you may mean "individual personality" (never mind that "higher stages" needs to be defined). Thus is something denied by Christianity, and appears to be Buddhist. (Thus, once again the lumping of all worldviews into one category of ultimately similarity is shown to be a huge mistake)
The Christian believes that his personality will actually be preserved, that it will not be absorbed into a pantheistic "all is one, and one is all". This we perceive to be simply a flowery, yet functional description of death.

That's not to be combative, but it is meant to illustrate how we see it. And yes, mysticism can be difficult to express.

I especially agree with your observation on interpretation vs experience. In Orthodoxy, there is a concept called "prelest", and an example of it would be a person experiencing what they perceive to be an angelic vision. It might be valid, it might not - but the only way to know would be to measure it against Authority. If it contradicted the accepted Authority (the Church, for us) then it would not be beatific, but a demonic vision, tempting us to turn away from the Church, or to begin teaching or doing things contrary to what the Church teaches - and that would be prelest.

[Cambo]

Then how can it be absolute? Or do you just mean "absolute to you?
Agreed. And therefore a subjective truth.

--A

Yes, I do mean absolute to me, and anyone who experiences it. The genuine transcendental or mystical is experience is by its nature absolute and all-encompassing. At the higher stages, the ego itself disappears. That, for me, is about as absolute as you can get. But of course, it cannot be an absolute truth for someone who has not had the experience. Also, some people do have the experience, and choose not to interpret it as "truth," so that too is relative. But the interpretation of the experience is a choice, and subject to relativity, whereas the experience itself (for me, the truth itself), is not.

Does that make sense? Mysticism is a difficult topic to put into rational words.

Hi Cambo,
I think that makes sense to me.
My comments on it are that a lack of experience is not the only thing that could cause people to deny it as absolute truth, They might also do so on the basis of authority accepted and teaching of a different view.

It seems (because we so often misunderstand each other's thoughts and intent on the 'net) that when you speak of "ego disappearing", you may mean "individual personality" (never mind that "higher stages" needs to be defined). Thus is something denied by Christianity, and appears to be Buddhist. (Thus, once again the lumping of all worldviews into one category of ultimately similarity is shown to be a huge mistake)
The Christian believes that his personality will actually be preserved, that it will not be absorbed into a pantheistic "all is one, and one is all". This we perceive to be simply a flowery, yet functional description of death.

That's not to be combative, but it is meant to illustrate how we see it. And yes, mysticism can be difficult to express.

I especially agree with your observation on interpretation vs experience. In Orthodoxy, there is a concept called "prelest", and an example of it would be a person experiencing what they perceive to be an angelic vision. It might be valid, it might not - but the only way to know would be to measure it against Authority. If it contradicted the accepted Authority (the Church, for us) then it would not be beatific, but a demonic vision, tempting us to turn away from the Church, or to begin teaching or doing things contrary to what the Church teaches - and that would be prelest.

Yes, conflict with existing ideologies would certainly be one reason someone might choose not interpret an experince as truth.

Good pick, my worlview is very much influenced by Buddhism. When I speak of higher stages, I had in mind the latter stages of consciousness attained through meditative practice, though I also believe the same stages are accessible through certain psychotropic drugs. And sorry I didn't reply to your thoughts on postmodernism, but yes, if the acknowledgement of many truths was postmodernism's great insight, the lumping together of all those truths as homogenous or undifferentiated was its great downfall. (It's a new week, I can talk about pm again.)

On ego, and to draw heavily on Buddhism, the word ego itself is a dualistic term, insufficient to describe non-dual experience. But I would think the difference in our interpretations arises from something to do with souls. I don't like assumptions, but I would guess that you believe, like most Christians, in a personal, individual soul. I do not. I think the only individual thing about us is the ego. But then, your description of a panentheistic death is interetsing. So you don't believe we carry our personal soul or identity with us into the afterlife?

I found the concept of "prelest" fascinating. It is not one I could share, however, because I myself accept no spiritual authority, I merely have certain influences, Buddhism and transpersonal psychology being the strongest.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

My conclusion is that what has been understood has been rejected out of hand, with the unfortunate side effects that you think you know some things about Chesterton and Lewis - and Orthodoxy - when I continually get non-understanding from you.

Are you saying that we don't like them because we don't understand them, or that we don't understand them because we don't like them? Can't we have both? I have nothing against CSL as an author of fiction - I enjoy the Narnia series. But I'm not ready to accept him or GKC as lay spiritual advisors, which is what you seem to want. Setting aside the mild flamebaiting, I think I do understand enough of their argument to reject, not the quality of their argument, but what they are selling.
I won't claim that their arguments (witty and wordy though they may be) aren't convincing, it's just that they aren't convincing to *me*. And that likely has more to do with me not being at a point in my life where Christian dogma and/or propaganda can permeate my shell. That's more me than you or them. I think I understand enough of the basics of Orthodoxy to distinguish it from other flavors of Christianity, so in that regard, this has been a beneficial, if somewhat didactic, discussion.

That goes ditto for everyone who complains about my posting comments and quotes from C+L. They complain - but they have read little to nothing, and have no context and very little understanding - mostly because they don't WANT to understand it. Anyone who wanted to understand it - especially intelligent people in their 30's, 40's and 50's - could, if they tried. And I think a few HAVE understood a little - but I should stress the "little" part. It's like the Adam Gopniks who periodically charge GKC with antisemitism. They've read something of his - a quote, a page or even a book - and they haven't gone on to read what clarifies and transforms the understandings - and they draw fast conclusions based on their modern understandings and contexts - in a near total ignorance of the context of his time, place and worldview. That's what I think it is with you guys. So I'm withdrawing. "He who hath ears to hear, let him hear." But I'll still answer honest questions, though. I just think that after over four years, there's not much I can say to you - unless you ever really want to know.

Um, does that 'if you read -- really read, not pretend read -- all of their works, you will come to understand and appreciate it' argument *ever* work on anyone? If the purpose of the non-Donaldson corners of the site were to foster a mini-shrines to GKC, I could see where you might have something going, but I don't think that's why most of us are here. After a certain amount of time, even Grandma figures out that nobody likes her fruitcake.

dw

[rusmeister]

My conclusion is that what has been understood has been rejected out of hand, with the unfortunate side effects that you think you know some things about Chesterton and Lewis - and Orthodoxy - when I continually get non-understanding from you.

Are you saying that we don't like them because we don't understand them, or that we don't understand them because we don't like them? Can't we have both? I have nothing against CSL as an author of fiction - I enjoy the Narnia series. But I'm not ready to accept him or GKC as lay spiritual advisors, which is what you seem to want. Setting aside the mild flamebaiting, I think I do understand enough of their argument to reject, not the quality of their argument, but what they are selling.
I won't claim that their arguments (witty and wordy though they may be) aren't convincing, it's just that they aren't convincing to *me*. And that likely has more to do with me not being at a point in my life where Christian dogma and/or propaganda can permeate my shell. That's more me than you or them. I think I understand enough of the basics of Orthodoxy to distinguish it from other flavors of Christianity, so in that regard, this has been a beneficial, if somewhat didactic, discussion.

That goes ditto for everyone who complains about my posting comments and quotes from C+L. They complain - but they have read little to nothing, and have no context and very little understanding - mostly because they don't WANT to understand it. Anyone who wanted to understand it - especially intelligent people in their 30's, 40's and 50's - could, if they tried. And I think a few HAVE understood a little - but I should stress the "little" part. It's like the Adam Gopniks who periodically charge GKC with antisemitism. They've read something of his - a quote, a page or even a book - and they haven't gone on to read what clarifies and transforms the understandings - and they draw fast conclusions based on their modern understandings and contexts - in a near total ignorance of the context of his time, place and worldview. That's what I think it is with you guys. So I'm withdrawing. "He who hath ears to hear, let him hear." But I'll still answer honest questions, though. I just think that after over four years, there's not much I can say to you - unless you ever really want to know.

Um, does that 'if you read -- really read, not pretend read -- all of their works, you will come to understand and appreciate it' argument *ever* work on anyone? If the purpose of the non-Donaldson corners of the site were to foster a mini-shrines to GKC, I could see where you might have something going, but I don't think that's why most of us are here. After a certain amount of time, even Grandma figures out that nobody likes her fruitcake.

dw

Hi, Dukkha,
(I'm rushed, I hope to have more time later)
What I would compare it to would be someone picking up one book, say "The Gap" or something, tossing it aside, and saying, "This stuff sucks; now I know SRD - I've read him." (That was my own reaction to "the Gap" as someone who already LIKED SRD) Those of us that are slightly more widely read would feel that that person, unfamiliar with TC, Mordant, etc, really hasn't given SRD a fair shake - that he is far more versatile a writer than they give him credit for and his talents are by no means limited to the Gap series.

[Zahir]

It seems (because we so often misunderstand each other's thoughts and intent on the 'net) that when you speak of "ego disappearing", you may mean "individual personality" (never mind that "higher stages" needs to be defined). Thus is something denied by Christianity, and appears to be Buddhist.

This is a misunderstanding of an idea. I actually feel "ego disappearing" is a poor description, since ego growth and transcendence conveys the ideas much better. One doesn't disappear, but rather one grows to such a degree that your current "self" becomes by comparison like the "self" you were in the womb. This is actually totally in tune with Orthodoxy.

Hi, Zahir,
I think Fist and I were talking about something slightly different. (Maybe Fist thinks not? If so, that underscores what I mean about a communication problem. Only I am not so much of a "Rain Man" that the entire problem of incorrectly communicating my own thoughts to some people over 4-5 years could lay entirely in my own lap.)
What I think we were talking about is what a lay person in civil society would or should advocate for his society in terms of law (and NOT faith)...or not. Should a believer participate in civil society? Or should they simply withdraw from it? That was how I posed it. You seem to be projecting your own interpretations of myself on to that and read a completely different - and inaccurate - dichotomy into it.

So a believer who votes for one thing or another - who seeks to impose a particular view with force of law - is NOT being self-righteous in doing so. And they of course DO dismiss disagreement, because they have already made up their minds. There is nothing at all wrong in dismissing agreement if you have actually seriously and honestly examined it and coming to a conclusion - at which point you dismiss the examined arguments.

The monk in the desert doesn't "compromise" with anyone. He simply surrenders to his God and seeks to hear His voice. Something I really envy at times.

So I'm not missing anything there. You're off on some other tangent.

I DO see a difference between claiming to have the answers and claiming to have the source - the former actually implies that you have all the answers that matter personally, and could mean that you obtained them on your own merit. The latter admits that you yourself are not the authority or source and acknowledges that one must accept the source (or Source).

Don't think you understood what I was saying. At all. Not even slightly.