Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:...but what good did it do me to think of the universe as nothing but a slow burn to heat death?

As much good as thinking it's not?

Besides, it is. I find it an exhilarating thought though, not a depressing one. My only regret is that I won't be around to see it.

--A

I'm not denying it could possibly happen. And your knowledge of a heat death is so woeful why even believe it? There won't be anything to watch. At best you could experience a starless night, but we still have those in certain cities.

To me the idea wasn't and isn't depressing. It was annoying and cumbersome to horde it and any number of ideas that atheism subscribes to as contingencies. It reminded me of an extreme diet or any number of lifestyle choices that people thinks make them hot-shots and knowledgeable.

For me Christianity isn't about what I know but just letting go. I just feel a lot clearer and less bound by my views and my preferences, which was all I had. And it wasn't working for me anymore. It's just a step up in my maturity. Of course; anyone can do it their own way. This is just mine.

Also, Av: science has some debate on what might happen in such a far-off era, especially with scientists beginning to look into the fact our Big Bang may have been a product of a past universe. Don't be so confident.

Lord Foul wrote:To me the idea wasn't and isn't depressing. It was annoying and cumbersome to horde it and any number of ideas that atheism subscribes to as contingencies.

What do you mean? Contingencies for what?

Lord Foul wrote:For me Christianity isn't about what I know but just letting go. I just feel a lot clearer and less bound by my views and my preferences, which was all I had. And it wasn't working for me anymore. It's just a step up in my maturity. Of course; anyone can do it their own way. This is just mine.

And, again, I'm happy for you. Finding your own fulfillment is a fantastic thing. Many people don't ever get so lucky.

Lord Foul wrote:Also, Av: science has some debate on what might happen in such a far-off era, especially with scientists beginning to look into the fact our Big Bang may have been a product of a past universe. Don't be so confident.

There's sooooooooooo much speculation involved in science on this topic. If there was anything before the BB, it was all broken down by the BB to a state that could not retain any evidence. Not like an automobile door handle made it through the BB, and revealed this and that, eh? And then there's the calculations that the vast majority of the universe must be dark matter, because something we can't detect has a massive gravitational influence on everything. And Hawking changes his mind about black holes? Forget it. Trying to base any beliefs on the BB or the end of the universe is a waste of time.

Science itself is a waste of time since religion explains everything nicely already.

dw

Fist: I'm saying what you're sayin' (just sayin'). There's more possibilities as science progresses. And even more reason for Av to be exhilirated. Hopefully our findings won't end at Hawking, and he was wrong on his major field of study anyway (black holes).

As for atheistic contingencies (things dependent on atheism but may not exist): No afterlife. No divining hand. Just empty space and us resisting the battle of entropy. For some this is all right. It was for me for 10 years but is no longer valid. For others it is. Enjoy! You know me, Fist. I can clearly and concisely explain myself, but never will I say I'm right or you're wrong. We'd be debating what condiments we like on our spiritual hotdogs.

In each of our universes we're completely correct. But that was a point made ages ago in this forum, in another thread.

Lord Foul wrote:Just empty space and us resisting the battle of entropy.

Battling entropy? That's like saying a car battles burning gasoline. We are able to do things because of entropy. All our actions, existence, etc. is the result of increased universal entropy.

Fist and Faith wrote:No, it is not. As always, with this topic, you speak of that which you do not know. That is, you speak from ignorance. Because you are compelled to tell others that they are wrong. You should stick to what you DO know. Like why what is written in the Bible that clearly contradicts your beliefs somehow DOESN'T contradict your beliefs. If only you DID know. But you don't. You are simply told to believe they don't. Then you've got the arrogance to tell me the inevitable conclusion of my beliefs...

:shrug:
"Haven't we been here before...?" (Styx)

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Here we are with that pesky word "narrow" again.

So lower your hackles at the use of 'narrow', and remove that one word from my post, then address the post itself instead of picking me apart based on the one word whose connotation offends you.

rusmeister wrote:I tried to speak so that I was clear that the principle applies whether one is speaking of oneself or the universe. So I was not trying to say that 'the universe will not go on when a person dies', but I did say that FOR THAT PERSON it will not go on. And if the universe must come to a complete end, then the principle applies for everyone, including our distant great-to-the-10th-power grandchildren, for we are all contained within the universe. So a final end must come in any event, and speaking about it "going on" after that point is inane, either on the personal level or the universal level. This is the strange blindness of which I speak, this effort to imagine, at all costs, that 'life will go on'. For it will not. So in materialism there is only despair in the end, literally. That a person can refuse or be unable to see it I do not doubt. But that IS a logical conclusion, indeed, the most logical conclusion.

It is a very logical conclusion, sort of like the conclusion that fish don't need bicycles, in that it is eminently logical, but totally useless and irrelevant.
Because I believe that hope -- the buoyant, effervescent, healing kind -- can spring from all corners of the heart, mind, body, soul, and the human condition in general -- not just the Christian/OC/RCC vault.

Trying to state or imply that hope is a brand exclusively owned by one religion is a selfish and misguided course. For one who frequently mentions agape, and is beside himself with dismay that the Wrong People might have eros, your actions paint you as one convinced that the universe truly operates only on tightly regimented storge, because anything else would be unseemly in the eyes of God.
These are of course types of love -- and what is hope but the anticipation of love?

dw

I've already spoken to what you believe. There's not much else to say there.
I can speak about how you present MY position, though.
I think what you MEAN to say is that 'to imply that a well-founded hope is a brand..." Then I can say "Yes." For the simple reason that someone here certainly MUST be wrong, and that is what we don't agree on.
When you go on to 'eros', you seem to fail to grasp what I actually see. If the passions can be bent, then there can be such a thing as bent eros. We still, for now (thank God) acknowledge this in the sin of pedophilia, although I expect that may change some day given the course you all advocate. Since we know eros can be bent/misguided/perverted/wrong, it is useless to accuse me of saying that it can be. Guilty as charged. You simpl,y no longer agree that some forms of sexual expression are perverted (in the old, literal, non-emotional sense), and are on a road to eventually deny others as well, for you no longer have a foundational basis, a national morality that all agree on, for preventing those other things. Your words

For one who frequently mentions agape, and is beside himself with dismay that the Wrong People might have eros, your actions paint you as one convinced that the universe truly operates only on tightly regimented storge, because anything else would be unseemly in the eyes of God.

could just as easily be taken by a defender of pedophilia, and will be. Give it a decade or two.

But of course, there is a definite truth about our existence, and any hope must be based on a correct interpretation of that truth.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:For me Christianity isn't about what I know but just letting go. I just feel a lot clearer and less bound by my views and my preferences, which was all I had. And it wasn't working for me anymore. It's just a step up in my maturity. Of course; anyone can do it their own way. This is just mine.

And, again, I'm happy for you. Finding your own fulfillment is a fantastic thing. Many people don't ever get so lucky.

As long as it doesn't represent truth that also affects ME, right, Fist?

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:Science itself is a waste of time since religion explains everything nicely already.

dw

No it doesn't. This looks like another one of those attempts to cast the natural sciences and Christianity as at odds, something that would greatly cheer the enemies of faith.

Since one side benefits from such a casting - by making the other side look stupid and anti-intellectual, it's clear who's motivated to imagine that there is such a conflict and why.

Orlion wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Just empty space and us resisting the battle of entropy.

Battling entropy? That's like saying a car battles burning gasoline. We are able to do things because of entropy. All our actions, existence, etc. is the result of increased universal entropy.

I think you are talking at cross-purposes to LF:
From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of ENTROPY
1
: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2
a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
3
: chaos, disorganization, randomness

You are using it in sense (1), LF in sense (2). He's speaking about the ultimate effects for us, and so is right in any ultimate/long-term sense. You're right in a technical and temporary sense, which is cold comfort to a corpse.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:No, it is not. As always, with this topic, you speak of that which you do not know. That is, you speak from ignorance. Because you are compelled to tell others that they are wrong. You should stick to what you DO know. Like why what is written in the Bible that clearly contradicts your beliefs somehow DOESN'T contradict your beliefs. If only you DID know. But you don't. You are simply told to believe they don't. Then you've got the arrogance to tell me the inevitable conclusion of my beliefs...

:shrug:
"Haven't we been here before...?" (Styx)

Still avoiding the question, I see. Still devoting yourself to telling others where their beliefs are wrong, instead of addressing the holes in your own.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:For me Christianity isn't about what I know but just letting go. I just feel a lot clearer and less bound by my views and my preferences, which was all I had. And it wasn't working for me anymore. It's just a step up in my maturity. Of course; anyone can do it their own way. This is just mine.

And, again, I'm happy for you. Finding your own fulfillment is a fantastic thing. Many people don't ever get so lucky.

As long as it doesn't represent truth that also affects ME, right, Fist?

I'm sure you'll set him straight. Letting others know what's wrong with their beliefs is the main purpose of Orthodoxy, after all. You don't describe your feelings on depression, and how you deal with it; you tell people that they are wrong to feel about it in a way other than your way, and that they won't succeed in any other way. You don't tell people how you feel about meaning; you tell them they think in unhealthy ways if they feel as they do about it.

But you'll never understand what I'm saying. For you, a necessary component of belief is telling people theirs are wrong.

Still avoiding the question, I see. Still devoting yourself to telling others where their beliefs are wrong, instead of addressing the holes in your own.

Just to defend Rus, who tends to get a lot of flak on this board, I don't think it's wrong to post in such a way on a discussion forum. It is OK to defend your own beliefs and attack others. I try and poke holes in all beliefs while maintaining the parts I find important, but what I find important changes from time to time.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:No, it is not. As always, with this topic, you speak of that which you do not know. That is, you speak from ignorance. Because you are compelled to tell others that they are wrong. You should stick to what you DO know. Like why what is written in the Bible that clearly contradicts your beliefs somehow DOESN'T contradict your beliefs. If only you DID know. But you don't. You are simply told to believe they don't. Then you've got the arrogance to tell me the inevitable conclusion of my beliefs...

:shrug:
"Haven't we been here before...?" (Styx)

Still avoiding the question, I see. Still devoting yourself to telling others where their beliefs are wrong, instead of addressing the holes in your own.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: And, again, I'm happy for you. Finding your own fulfillment is a fantastic thing. Many people don't ever get so lucky.

As long as it doesn't represent truth that also affects ME, right, Fist?

I'm sure you'll set him straight. Letting others know what's wrong with their beliefs is the main purpose of Orthodoxy, after all. You don't describe your feelings on depression, and how you deal with it; you tell people that they are wrong to feel about it in a way other than your way, and that they won't succeed in any other way. You don't tell people how you feel about meaning; you tell them they think in unhealthy ways if they feel as they do about it.

But you'll never understand what I'm saying. For you, a necessary component of belief is telling people theirs are wrong.

You know, Fist, some things are just me. I don't equal the Orthodox Church. I'm just one Fallen member in that Church.

But we speak to what we see. We talk (I hope) about the things we think we know something about. You'll get other approaches from other people, you'll get Orthodox people like Linna, or 'weez - different people. Diversity.

The thing I speak to, and see, is the grand heresy of our time, that makes Arianism look like a minor belch - and that destructive philosophy of our time is called pluralism. I see its danger, and so attack it; its general modus operandi is to work without being noticed - so I propose to point it out; to define and identify it, to name it so people see exactly what it is that they are saying. And this:

And, again, I'm happy for you. Finding your own fulfillment is a fantastic thing. Many people don't ever get so lucky.

is an extremely common way in which it cloaks itself. It says that truth does not matter. It appears to say that "I care about your happiness", but actually says "Whatever floats your boat". I don't think you intend it that way at all, but it is a grand form of indifference to what he believes, it makes it completely unimportant, because you do not intend to engage with it.

That fundamental attitude - that you can believe whatever you want, but what you believe does not, and cannot, reflect truth that also affects me, is the heart of pluralism, and the thing that gives birth to "political correctness", which I define as the practical application of pluralism, and THAT I will fight against wherever I find it. I hate that kind of indifference to the truth. If what he believes is true, let us ALL accept it!!! If it is false, let us all reject it and heap scorn on it (but not on him, personally)! But let us not say that we are glad he believes it, if it makes him happy!!!

What is the truth? Is it the truth, or not? Can anything which claims to be the complete picture BE the complete picture? I say that it is definitely possible. And that is the single most important thing to me in this life - finding the truth - or at least, dying in the attempt. If one actually finds it, the most logical thing is to want to bring it to other people. It's not about me wanting other people to be wrong. It's about wanting an end to falsehoods and a multiplicity of confusion about what is true.

Holsety, I don't understand the need to prove others wrong. But if you must, only self deception can allow you to succeed when your tactic is to ignore the responses to your attacks on worldviews you cannot know, and simply say, "I'm right about your worldview, and you're wrong." It's doubly wrong when you add, "Only insane thinking can lead to your conclusion." And it's triply wrong when your own worldview requires you to ignore parts of the primary source of that worldview.

No, rus, I do not say truth does not matter. I say it DOES matter, and I have found it. We all have different combinations of fears, needs, desires, preferences, etc., and some worldviews give each of us more happiness and peace than other worldviews do. I am truly happy when anyone finds a worldview that gives them these things.

Now, if anyone wants me to believe otherwise, I am usually willing to hear their evidence. But what will surely NOT convince me is telling me that a truth I feel with absolute clarity is not possible in a person with healthy thought processes.

And, frankly, I am also not likely to give much consideration to the ideas of someone who glosses over very important aspects of his worldview, ignores things that cannot be reconciled, etc.

Fist and Faith wrote:No, rus, I do not say truth does not matter. I say it DOES matter, and I have found it. We all have different combinations of fears, needs, desires, preferences, etc., and some worldviews give each of us more happiness and peace than other worldviews do. I am truly happy when anyone finds a worldview that gives them these things.

Now, if anyone wants me to believe otherwise, I am usually willing to hear their evidence. But what will surely NOT convince me is telling me that a truth I feel with absolute clarity is not possible in a person with healthy thought processes.

And, frankly, I am also not likely to give much consideration to the ideas of someone who glosses over very important aspects of his worldview, ignores things that cannot be reconciled, etc.

I apologize for my tone in my last post; I feel I could have softened that a little if I had tried.

For the rest - well, we don't see eye to eye. I see inconsistency in your view, in that, if it IS the truth - and it seems like a very incomplete truth to me - then it would be something that you would hope LF, myself, and everyone else to see as well. If we don't see it, and that's fine, then it really doesn't matter.

I haven't forgotten, and I don't ignore apparent contradictions, and don't think I am glossing over anything important. I'm not all-knowing, but I think I've fielded pretty much everything you've thrown at me (the Genesis question pending).

rusmeister wrote: then it would be something that you would hope LF, myself, and everyone else to see as well. If we don't see it, and that's fine, then it really doesn't matter.

Maybe this is the key. To fist, it really is fine if you don't see it like him, and yes, that would mean what his truth is really doesn't matter, to anyone but him. And that he can be happy in such a world.

Indeed, it does not matter if anyone believes it. It doesn't matter if anyone even hears of it. That is not a weakness in reality, or evidence that reality is otherwise. What matters is that everyone find a worldview that gives them what they need. Which does not always happen, unfortunately. Unfortunately for those who don't find it and those they hurt, that is. The universe doesn't care.

The fact that you do not like this situation is not evidence against it, rus.

Holsety, I don't understand the need to prove others wrong. But if you must, only self deception can allow you to succeed when your tactic is to ignore the responses to your attacks on worldviews you cannot know, and simply say, "I'm right about your worldview, and you're wrong." It's doubly wrong when you add, "Only insane thinking can lead to your conclusion." And it's triply wrong when your own worldview requires you to ignore parts of the primary source of that worldview.

Ugh. I can't talk about where that leaves Rus, but it leaves me in quite a quandry.

I'm not in much tourble on the first two spots, but the third? I NEED to ignore parts of my primary sources, because my primary sources are too expansive IMO for me to pick a named worldview I am satisfied with. Whenever I choose to say, "I am a liberal", "I am a Jew," "I am a male", I leave myself, when self-reflective, a little bit disappointed to be saying it as though I believed it when in my core, I know not what I would call myself besides perhaps the name given to me.

Orlion wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Just empty space and us resisting the battle of entropy.

Battling entropy? That's like saying a car battles burning gasoline. We are able to do things because of entropy. All our actions, existence, etc. is the result of increased universal entropy.

Great. A niggling detail! Well the natural entropic state is also gonna destroy everything, so bam.