Kevin's Watch

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

Holsety wrote:

Your heart only pumps blood. Everything romantically referring to the heart derives purely from the brain.

Eh. The blood streams to the brain and supplies it with air. "Derive purely" my ass. Also I have felt my brain and heart burn - in a good way - together with passion, so there must be something in the heart. Perhaps the heart is the brain's outlet when the brain is handling too much.

Unfortunately science is laughing at you.
Those with artificial hearts still feel love and passion.
It's all a chemical reaction in the brain.
As is any idea about the soul or faith.

Science is incapable of laughter, so now I would laugh at you if I could. All I feel is a sort of happy contentment, however, so...here we are back at the beginning, I and science looking into each others' eyes, one utterly unable of any emotion whatsoever, I capable of happy contentment. Who is better off between me and science (for the moment - in the long run I am really in for a thrashing).

Moreover it laughs the laughter of an idiot, which is not a particularly bad thing except that now that it reads the following, science might well shut up for a second and listen.

Since the artificial heart still pumps blood into the brain,
the emotions still do not derive "purely" from the heart.

I did not say that the brain was not the most important source of the emotions, or that the heart was the most important source. All I said is that I felt my heart as an outlet for the brain's emotions, or something like that, and it felt very good and is a fond memory of mine now.

EDIT-Note that I do not have any serious bones to pick with science. Science has done a lot for the world that is good, though also a lot that is bad (see religion, though I think Zar might be right in thinking that religion as an ideology that shapes political and economic action is outdated). But isn't it fair to pretend in a place dedicated to spiritual matters?

Good posts, folks.

As ali said, dw, I'm saying rus cannot choose to not believe. The fact that he won't choose to not believe today, tomorrow, or any other day isn't proof that he can't, but it's sure stronger evidence that he can't than that he can.

I cannot choose to believe. I can't choose to believe in something that I have absolutely no feeling for, and see no evidence for. It is the height of foolishness, and I am not capable of it.

Mind you, that's only the height of foolishness for me. Other people have other feelings and other experiences. I cannot possibly claim that those things are not what my mind would consider legitimate reason to believe if they had happened to me. Their belief, rus' belief, can very well be perfectly valid, to my way of thinking.

Mind you again, people who have those feelings and experiences are entirely egotistical to think they can know that I can choose to believe as easily as they can. Just as Mozart would be entirely egotistical to believe I could flawlessly memorize complex, multi-part music at one hearing.

Mind you again, people who have those feelings and experiences are entirely egotistical to think they can know that I can choose to believe as easily as they can. Just as Mozart would be entirely egotistical to believe I could flawlessly memorize complex, multi-part music at one hearing.

XD But such is normally the very opposite of egotism, friend (sorry I just couldn't help saying it). To believe in the capabilities of others is usually not egotism! I know very well that one could erase the distinction, but surely what MOST PEOPLE mean by egotism...

Usually egotism means thinking one's 'self' is better than the 'other.' Anyway, I have seen remarkable feats of this or that from people recently. Memorizing mozart would be a bit much, but believing in the words of others would I think be not so hard because to me, so many words mean so much the same thing, whereas a piece of music is impossible to divide apart (for me) in the same way. When Mozart plays his symphonies, I don't hear notes, and I can't argue away the notes by saying they've condensed into something merely by being on frequencies that a different animal might interpret as relatively identical. With words, I actually DO suspect people of saying absolutely nothing substantial about how other human beings should be treated, or how the world should be treated. In other words I suspect human all conversation of amounting to little more than "shooting the breeze" despite my own...that's the meaning of paranoia.

Actions not words? Gotta find a way to live it. Maybe Harbinger's job offer is it. It's a risk, and it might not be a reward, but we'll see what he says through PM about the expected delay.

What I mean is this... Believing you know all minds, based on knowing your own. Believing you have experienced all that can be experienced, or at least all that is necessary, and, therefore, know how all others can and must feel, and what the capabilities and limitations of all others are. That is egotism.

Holsety wrote:

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

Holsety wrote: Eh. The blood streams to the brain and supplies it with air. "Derive purely" my ass. Also I have felt my brain and heart burn - in a good way - together with passion, so there must be something in the heart. Perhaps the heart is the brain's outlet when the brain is handling too much.

Unfortunately science is laughing at you.
Those with artificial hearts still feel love and passion.
It's all a chemical reaction in the brain.
As is any idea about the soul or faith.

Science is incapable of laughter, so now I would laugh at you if I could.

Touché!

Fist and Faith wrote:What I mean is this... Believing you know all minds, based on knowing your own. Believing you have experienced all that can be experienced, or at least all that is necessary, and, therefore, know how all others can and must feel, and what the capabilities and limitations of all others are. That is egotism.

Ah...

Well, first of all, I KNOW that materially, I have experienced nothing much that can be called bad, and that I have been extraordinarily blessed. However, I would say that I suffer, in terms of ego if nothing else, for the realization of this, and without stimulation I fall into depression.

The second thing is that once one commits this egotism on a broad scale as the result of paranoia, that is to say, once one believes that everyone else is superior to oneself and that the world was all a carefully designed parody of ones own life, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I committed this on facebook. I am told no one read the notes, and yet they ACT as though they do. People suddenly seem to follow what I like more closely. In some odd way, it is as though I have actually set a few trends for those around me. Obviously I am suffering from confirmation bias, but it is difficult to ACT as though I am not suffering from it.

Finally, one runs into odd experiences where people seem to act as though they don't remember things they've just said, or yadda yadda, and one begins to wonder, is reality really out of step with me? Am I out of step with reality? What does one do to stop the feeling that the world is reverberating with you and that one's very thoughts are being read?

aliantha wrote:dw, I think Fist's point is that rus, personally, cannot choose not to believe. I almost made the same point in a response earlier today, but bailed out of it.

I think some people have an innate need to believe that there's Something Out There. Whether it's hardwired by nature or nurture (a point that can -- and has! -- been debated), if you're primed for it, you can't just say "screw this!" and walk away an atheist. There will always be something nagging at you that your atheistic worldview is not quite right. Eventually, if you're true to yourself, you will come back to religion.

Fist apparently doesn't have that internal nag hardwired in. Or he does, and that's why he keeps up the search for a religion that resonates with him, if any there be.

Rus did, in fact, say "screw this!" and walk away once -- but his hardwiring drew him back eventually, albeit to a different faith than the one he grew up in.

Hi, Ali,
I know what Fist is saying. And I'm saying he's... (the 'w' word ).
The thing you do not consider here is that I might have died between the time I was 19 and the time I was 38. If I had - and some people do, so it's no good pointing out that I didn't - then there would be no talk of my 'having been drawn back'. It would be solid evidence of my ability to walk away. There was nothing inevitable about my conversion. It was not 'fated' - unless you are a determinist and believe we have no free will at all, in which case there's no point in ever getting upset at anything anyone ever does. I, or the people around me could have made different choices. And the very word "choice" implies free will.
So yes I CAN walk away. I see my ability to really do that now, just as you could leave your spouse if only you had any motivation to do so. As long as the motivation is absent, sure, it is improbable. But if circumstances change, he suddenly beats you or she spends your life savings or whatever, you might make that choice. If one of my children died, God forbid, I would be tested to the limit. Many people DO break under such tests. But Job did not. Abraham did not. The martyrs, in ancient Rome and Communist Russia did not ( a fascinating study, the New Martyrs). We ARE free to choose, even the more difficult path, against our "hardwiring" that you seem to believe prevents us from making such choices and sticking to them. The Iron Giant carries that lesson wonderfully and it is the best modern children's film I have seen, period.

PS - this is from my iPad, which periodically betrays me, and I am on a bouncy bus on my weekly commute to Moscow, that big stone city, so I'll wrap up for now. I apologize for not being able to keep up with everyone's comments.

PS - this is from my iPad, which periodically betrays me, and I am on a bouncy bus on my weekly commute to Moscow, that big stone city, so I'll wrap up for now. I apologize for not being able to keep up with everyone's comments.

I don't believe you have any responsibility, set in stone, to keep up with our comments, but I understand you may have a compulsion to do so and that the compulsion is honorable in a world of persuasion leading to understanding. (perhaps) So, hey. Thanks for your tireless dedication to your worldviews which, frankly, go over my head because I haven't really tried to engage with them.

As far as children's films go, I really like Gundam: Awakening of the Trailblazer. It is actually way too bloody to be a kid's flick but I consider most anime to be for children, even when it's bloody. It's essentially about humans with robot suits (so not TOO far from the iron giant) battling von neumann probes (nonsentient aliens which turn everything into duplicates of themselves).

rusmeister wrote:The thing you do not consider here is that I might have died between the time I was 19 and the time I was 38. If I had - and some people do, so it's no good pointing out that I didn't - then there would be no talk of my 'having been drawn back'. It would be solid evidence of my ability to walk away. There was nothing inevitable about my conversion. It was not 'fated' - unless you are a determinist and believe we have no free will at all, in which case there's no point in ever getting upset at anything anyone ever does. I, or the people around me could have made different choices. And the very word "choice" implies free will.
So yes I CAN walk away. I see my ability to really do that now, just as you could leave your spouse if only you had any motivation to do so. As long as the motivation is absent, sure, it is improbable. But if circumstances change, he suddenly beats you or she spends your life savings or whatever, you might make that choice. If one of my children died, God forbid, I would be tested to the limit. Many people DO break under such tests. But Job did not. Abraham did not. The martyrs, in ancient Rome and Communist Russia did not ( a fascinating study, the New Martyrs). We ARE free to choose, even the more difficult path, against our "hardwiring" that you seem to believe prevents us from making such choices and sticking to them. The Iron Giant carries that lesson wonderfully and it is the best modern children's film I have seen, period.

You say there was nothing inevitable about it. And, yet, here you are. It doesn't prove my point, but it sure doesn't prove yours! We can "What if" all we want, but it's all speculation. What happened is what happened. You returned to God.

No, I don't call it "fate". I call it doing what you had to do. Doing what was necessary for you to find a level of things like happiness, contentment, and peace that you could live with. You tried to fill the need for faith with other things. (You've mentioned a couple things.) But they didn't suffice. So you returned to faith, but a version that also satisfied your intellectual needs.

Really, I don't understand why you fight me on this. What could possibly be wrong with what I'm saying? How is it a weakness, or insult, or anything negative at all? Heck, nothing I'm saying even contradicts the idea that God was responsible for all of it. You could easily believe God gave you the hardwiring I'm talking about. Or sent the right people to you at the right time. Or God arranged it so that you would learn the lessons God knew you needed to learn before you would be ready to return with the necessary strength and dedication.

I'm afraid that I agree with rus on this (*shiver* ). As far as I've observed, there are different levels of how easy it is to change based upon how invested you are in your beliefs. The more invested you are, the more you won't want to change... the more you will defend that belief tooth and nail. I mean, if I were to invest the time, energy, and resources into something, I want it to be worthwhile, and damn if I'm not going to make it worth while.

But, if what you are investing for, what you want out of your belief, ceases to be, that is when you change. So if there is something I disagree with in this instant, it's that it isn't a "want to believe in Orthodoxy/Meaninglessness" it's wanting whatever belief in those systems gives you.

This can be seen in the interpretation of historic events (not to argue, just to say my piece and move on). Many belief systems will and do interpret history in whatever way suits them. And history is so diverse, that they don't necessarily have to be wrong in those diversifications. There are many frame of references to history, and each can be correct (much like two people on opposite sides of the road will see a car going left to right or right to left depending on which side, and both will be correct).

rusmeister wrote:

aliantha wrote:dw, I think Fist's point is that rus, personally, cannot choose not to believe. I almost made the same point in a response earlier today, but bailed out of it.

I think some people have an innate need to believe that there's Something Out There. Whether it's hardwired by nature or nurture (a point that can -- and has! -- been debated), if you're primed for it, you can't just say "screw this!" and walk away an atheist. There will always be something nagging at you that your atheistic worldview is not quite right. Eventually, if you're true to yourself, you will come back to religion.

Fist apparently doesn't have that internal nag hardwired in. Or he does, and that's why he keeps up the search for a religion that resonates with him, if any there be.

Rus did, in fact, say "screw this!" and walk away once -- but his hardwiring drew him back eventually, albeit to a different faith than the one he grew up in.

Hi, Ali,
I know what Fist is saying. And I'm saying he's... (the 'w' word ).
The thing you do not consider here is that I might have died between the time I was 19 and the time I was 38. If I had - and some people do, so it's no good pointing out that I didn't - then there would be no talk of my 'having been drawn back'. It would be solid evidence of my ability to walk away. There was nothing inevitable about my conversion. It was not 'fated' - unless you are a determinist and believe we have no free will at all, in which case there's no point in ever getting upset at anything anyone ever does. I, or the people around me could have made different choices. And the very word "choice" implies free will.
So yes I CAN walk away. I see my ability to really do that now, just as you could leave your spouse if only you had any motivation to do so. As long as the motivation is absent, sure, it is improbable. But if circumstances change, he suddenly beats you or she spends your life savings or whatever, you might make that choice. If one of my children died, God forbid, I would be tested to the limit. Many people DO break under such tests. But Job did not. Abraham did not. The martyrs, in ancient Rome and Communist Russia did not ( a fascinating study, the New Martyrs). We ARE free to choose, even the more difficult path, against our "hardwiring" that you seem to believe prevents us from making such choices and sticking to them. The Iron Giant carries that lesson wonderfully and it is the best modern children's film I have seen, period.

PS - this is from my iPad, which periodically betrays me, and I am on a bouncy bus on my weekly commute to Moscow, that big stone city, so I'll wrap up for now. I apologize for not being able to keep up with everyone's comments.

Holsety's right -- nobody holds you to the impossible standard of answering everybody's comments, except you yourself. Just sayin'.

As for free will v. determinism: I realize that's a hot, huge debate for Christians. For me, as a Neopagan, it's a non sequitur. We have no omnipotent, omniscient god who is either orchestrating our lives or allowing us to choose (or -- cue the "Twilight Zone" theme -- making us believe that we can choose when in fact the ending is already determined!). To me, it makes perfect sense that a person can have an innate inclination to do A but be led astray to do B for awhile (maybe even by a god!). That doesn't change the person's innate inclination. An imperfect analogy: If a guy puts on makeup and heels to go to a Halloween party, and is hit by a bus and killed, it doesn't mean he was a woman when he died. If his life had continued on, presumably he would have gone home and gone back to being a guy.

That Arnold Layne had strange hobbies...

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:What's this? Round 1,342 in our exchanges?

Indeed. And you still won't tell us what it is you believe!

rusmeister wrote:But something in me has now changed, and I won't argue.

And I'm trying very hard to find a way to get you to post in non-combative ways. There's no need to argue. We can talk about what we believe, and why we believe it, without arguing. If only you would talk about what you believe. But, beyond 'I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth...', you refuse.

rusmeister wrote:But here I'll say that I want my beliefs to be based as solidly as possible on actual facts, and not on fantasies.

And what are those beliefs?

rusmeister wrote:So when I call for an actual examination of history, I get asked why I nsist on facts (as well as their correct interpretation, but I'll be happy to start with the facts themselves - at least they provide an objective starting point).

I'm not asking why you insist on basing your beliefs on facts; I'm asking what your beliefs are.

rusmeister wrote:I do not speak of naming so much as defining - but the definition is certainly attached to the name. If everyone says "they believe the One Truth" but no one ever defines it, then we hardly know what the 'One Truth' they believe in happens to be.

You won't define it.

rusmeister wrote:I think Furl's did a smashing job of expressing what she believed - and yet it did not 'work' for you - I don't think telling you that 'I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth...' is going to do anything for you.

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with anything "working" for me. It has to do with you sharing your beliefs with us. That's why we're all here.

rusmeister wrote:I don't think examining my psyche, my soul, to be of tremendous value. What I HAVE found to be of tremendous value is beginning to think - about history, for example - to inquire into what actually was, and I am convinced, that like everything else, there is an actual fact of the matter in history - there IS an actual understanding that is true, and contradicting ones therefore false.

Perhaps. But you aren't saying much of anything about the facts of history, either, except to say that it supports your beliefs. Which, of course, you are unwilling to share.

rusmeister wrote:To me it is self-evident that the Christian faith could only be true if it is historically consistent - if it proclaimed actual truth not in error by divine inspiration, and that at no time have those truths so determined proven to be false.

Well, it's surely possible for falsehoods to be historically consistent. But if you don't tell us what you think these truths are, we'll never be able to decide whether to agree with you or not.

Which is not our goal, of course. I'm not aware of anyone here, other than you, whose goal is to convince others that they are the only one speaking truths. It's certainly not the purpose that the general consensus of posters have given the Close.

rusmeister wrote:So the Christian - the one who accepts that faith (if we ever trouble to identify it) must, then, accept what the early Christians believed - or he is not a Christian, but something else, going by the name. It is so mind-bogglingly obvious to me that it is painful to say it, that it seems like condescension - if only you had not specifically asked for it.

I didn't ask for it. I asked for your beliefs. You want this to be about telling people that they must accept certain beliefs if they want to be called "Christian" (as well as informing the rest of us that we're way off ). But you'll never accomplish your mission if you don't tell us what your beliefs are.

rusmeister wrote:If the faith was not true in the first century, then there is no reason at all to suppose that it "became" true at a later point,
considered from the point of view of anyone claiming to accept that faith. One of the chief principles must be that the faith is something that we do not create; that it has gotten along well without us for 2,000 years, and can continue for another 2,000 after we are gone from this planet, so any Christian must start by accepting something that already was there before he 'showed up', and whose truth he is powerless to change.

And what is this faith that was there in the first century, and has gotten along well without us for 2,000 years?

rusmeister wrote:I believe what I find to be true. And the truth that seems to you to be "narrow" I find as broad as the world, and it makes the multifarium of ideas that seems so broad to you to be incredibly narrow.

And what is it you have found to be true? I couldn't care less if you think mine narrow and I think yours narrow. I'm not going to so much as mention such a thing before you start telling others that they are wrong. But expressing your beliefs is not telling others that theirs are wrong.

rusmeister wrote:And I find that the truth I believe in to make sense of all of the disconnected facts of the world.

I know how you feel. That's exactly how I feel about the truth I believe in.

rusmeister wrote:And so I see, when I look at history, that history supports what I have come to accept as surely as any of you believes that it supports what you believe - yet when I ask for a historical examination, I get (from some) a curious evasion, something that only confirms for me what I have long suspected - that we know far less history than we think we do, and much of what we think we know is false, though it is based on certain select facts.

The difficulty you have interacting here is that, as this clearly expresses, your goal is to correct everyone else on their beliefs. Few, if any, are here to be shown the Truth. We are mainly here to share ideas and beliefs. If
yours contain things of wisdom or beauty, I'll be better off for knowing them.

And it's possible that someone or other will hear more truth in your words than the rest hear, and will ask you for more information. You may, indeed, now and then, set someone onto what you consider to be the one true path.

rusmeister wrote:If you cannot see one germ of truth in anything I say, then you have the multifarium of an entire Watch, where I am largely staying out of. You need not hear my nonsense at all. That you seek it out suggests that you do not see all of it to be nonsense, though.

If you start telling us what your beliefs are, I'll know if I see one germ of truth in them. I have no doubt I will find some true germs.

The one basic thought that permeates all of this is at I have somehow not, over 5-odd years here, expressed what I believe. Yet I have. It is summed up in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. If only you would read it, you would know what I believe. To that, the primary fact that I can add is that the Church that has maintained paradosis from the beginning is the Orthodox Church. The Churches that are disconnected from that Tradition also have great truths - for everywhere that we agree they are the same truths. Even Tracie, far though she was from that Tradition, confessed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And so do a number of posters still posting here. They are not wrong in all of those things where they accept, like me, that common faith, which is why we can all be called Christians. Which leads me to you're idea that I want to proclaim everybody wrong. That is inaccurate; a gross and unjust simplification of my views. I think most people are right about a great many things. We still, at this point in time, agree on the wisdom of wearing clothes and the immorality of murder and pedophilia, and that politeness is essential for civilized society. I think all of us are wrong about something or other, including myself. I also think it is possible to be certain of SOMETHING and even that one could be right in such certainty, and that others could and must be wry on those questions when at is so. That is mere common sense. But still, despite significant common ground, there are things people are wrong on. The idea that this physical life is all there is to existence, for example, and as I said before, my view, which I am certain of - I know it because I believe it - is far more cheery than yours. That you conflate that with a universal cry that everyone else is wrong about everything is something I neither intend nor can help you holding.

What do I believe? (again)
I could go blow-by-blow through the Creed - God is both One and Three - mystically both of one essence and yet three separate Beings. How that can be so, I don't know. How a big blob could have existed before time and exploded in a "big bang" is also a mystical dogma, yet a great many of you accept it. That God is the Creator of absolutely everything and is external to the universe, not a mere part of His Creation. And so on to the Lord Jesus Christ. What I believe is public domain. That's why it has gotten along without me for so long. It is not dependent on me. I will die, and the Faith will still be around.

Yes, confessing it was a step - a leap. By the time I reached that point it wasn't so difficult for me. The cardinal fact I had established about myself was that I had been deliberately creating barriers to accepting it - barriers of my own making. I learned that I was the thing to not be completely trusted.

But it's all in the Creed. It is no secret. From one God, one Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, to one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, to one Baptism, and to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come - which is tidings of comfort and joy to anyone who can grasp the meaning of these things. If that's what you want to talk about, we can talk about it till the cows come home!

The trouble seems to be, and have always been, not what I believe but why I believe it. And there we are back to apologetics - reason and philosophy - and personal experience. On the latter I had, for example, invited people in the thread in Doriendor Corishev on public education to read about my personal life and
experiences - the thread remained dead and almost no one responded, considered my thoughts or read the linked thread, which I was the prime
author of.

So I really don't know why you are in the dark about what I believe. I've offered every opportunity to learn about it. As to the whys - I've been posting about that from the beginning.

But I've referenced these things over the years. I've posted both numerous quotes and my own thoughts on these things. Maybe

rusmeister wrote:The one basic thought that permeates all of this is at I have somehow not, over 5-odd years here, expressed what I believe. Yet I have. It is summed up in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. If only you would read it, you would know what I believe.

Telling us to read the Nicene-Constantinople Creed is not expressing what you believe. We're having a conversation, neh? Everybody comes here and talks. Certainly, we will all, from time to time, refer to this or that source. But referring to sources is not having a conversation. Hey rus, what do you believe?

rusmeister wrote:To that, the primary fact that I can add is that the Church that has maintained paradosis from the beginning is the Orthodox Church. The Churches that are disconnected from that Tradition also have great truths - for everywhere that we agree they are the same truths. Even Tracie, far though she was from that Tradition, confessed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And so do a number of posters still posting here. They are not wrong in all of those things where they accept, like me, that common faith, which is why we can all be called Christians.

Telling us, in very general terms, why you believe what you believe, and who has greater and lesser understandings of the truths that you believe, is not telling us what you believe.

rusmeister wrote:What do I believe? (again)
I could go blow-by-blow through the Creed...

But you won't. I can't imagine why not. Even if you thought there was no need when you first came to the Watch, after five years of people not reading the Creed just to learn what it is you believe, and telling you that we'd rather have a conversation with you - in short, after five years of posting in ways people are not bothering with - I'd think you'd give in and tell us about the Creed.

rusmeister wrote:God is both One and Three - mystically both of one essence and yet three separate Beings.

I guess this concept - the Trinity - is the most important part of your faith? An honest question, not trying to bust your chops. Why is this important? I have, of course, heard of this all my life. Some, including you, iirc, say one must believe this, or one is not a Christian. Why is that? Will God and Jesus refuse someone who is following Christ's teachings to the best of their understanding if they do not bother with this Trinity idea? Not just those who have read the Bible without anyone telling them how to interpret things (because how could God and Jesus blame someone for not seeing it without help is beyone me), but even those who are told about it, but think more of the commandments, Jesus' sacrifice, etc.


What is another extremely important part of your faith?

rusmeister wrote:The trouble seems to be, and have always been, not what I believe but why I believe it.

No, the trouble has always been that you continually tell everyone that they are wrong about their beliefs. That's the only reason you and I fight about anything. Have I ever insisted anyone else explain or support their beliefs? No. It's not necessary. But I'm holding you to a different standard, because your superiority could not have come about if you did not have every detail of everything worked out perfectly. As long as you continue to tell us all that we're wrong, I'm going to insist that you prove it. Prove our wrongness, and prove your ideas accurate.

rusmeister wrote:And there we are back to apologetics - reason and philosophy - and personal experience. On the latter I had, for example, invited people in the thread in Doriendor Corishev on public education to read about my personal life and
experiences - the thread remained dead and almost no one responded, considered my thoughts or read the linked thread, which I was the prime
author of.

So I really don't know why you are in the dark about what I believe. I've offered every opportunity to learn about it. As to the whys - I've been posting about that from the beginning.

But I've referenced these things over the years. I've posted both numerous quotes and my own thoughts on these things. Maybe

You've offered us every opportunity to learn about it, and you've referenced things many times. That's not telling us what you believe.

Holsety wrote:I believe that, in accordance with the fact that Abraham argued with god to save good men in a city of evil, it is our place to challenge god, fate, or whatever rules over us.

You get props from me for bringing one of my sometimes-favorite and one of the most troubling passages in the Bible.

So tempting to respond to that, but I may be sidetracking this already-sidetracked thread.

Enjoying the back-and-forth between Holesty and HLT tremendously.

Carry on, folks. =)

Holsety's right -- nobody holds you to the impossible standard of answering everybody's comments, except you yourself. Just sayin'.

I'm curious as to whether you can hear a note of encouragement behind that. I think some of it lines up with our Master's words, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (ali might not be a Christian, but when it comes to noticing things about you or me, she has the advantage that she is -not- you or me.)

But this is a post you don't have to answer.

On the flip side of that... one Christian writer who really inspires me seeks to answer the questions of people outside the Christian faith, and she was initially driven by the fact that when she was a student, intensely searching for answers, her Christian friends went with intellectual cop-outs like, "You just gotta have faith. <end of discussion>"

So she was pretty angry to discover that there were FANTASTIC answers to her specific questions, and nobody had bothered to try for a long time!

I think that wanting to provide for others something that was withheld from you for so long really drives you, rus.

Linna Heartlistener wrote:

Holsety's right -- nobody holds you to the impossible standard of answering everybody's comments, except you yourself. Just sayin'.

I'm curious as to whether you can hear a note of encouragement behind that. I think some of it lines up with our Master's words, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (ali might not be a Christian, but when it comes to noticing things about you or me, she has the advantage that she is -not- you or me.)

Thanks, Linna. Yes, it was meant to give rus a get-out-of-answering-everybody's-posts-free card. Gods know *I* don't answer everybody. I'd rather pick my battles.

Orlion wrote:I'm afraid that I agree with rus on this (*shiver* ).

Relax. Take deep breaths. Recite the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear. You'll be fine.

Orlion wrote:As far as I've observed, there are different levels of how easy it is to change based upon how invested you are in your beliefs. The more invested you are, the more you won't want to change... the more you will defend that belief tooth and nail. I mean, if I were to invest the time, energy, and resources into something, I want it to be worthwhile, and damn if I'm not going to make it worth while.

But, if what you are investing for, what you want out of your belief, ceases to be, that is when you change. So if there is something I disagree with in this instant, it's that it isn't a "want to believe in Orthodoxy/Meaninglessness" it's wanting whatever belief in those systems gives you.

This can be seen in the interpretation of historic events (not to argue, just to say my piece and move on). Many belief systems will and do interpret history in whatever way suits them. And history is so diverse, that they don't necessarily have to be wrong in those diversifications. There are many frame of references to history, and each can be correct (much like two people on opposite sides of the road will see a car going left to right or right to left depending on which side, and both will be correct).

I'm not going to suggest:
-No person who believes can choose to not believe.
-No person who does not believe can choose to believe.
-We can know whether or not everyone who claims to believe or not believe is being honest with us (some don't want to admit it, for whatever reason), or even truly understands their own stance (many many many people are still trying to figure themselves out).

What I'm saying is: rus cannot choose to not believe, and I cannot choose to believe. As things are now, we are both choiceless. Knowing what we each know, and having had the lives and experiences we've each had, we cannot choose otherwise. It would take some new kind of information for either of us to choose the opposite of what we currently believe. I can't imagine what kind of information would make rus choose otherwise. I assume there is none. What physical evidence against the existence of God could there possibly be? God's nature being what he believes it is, it's impossible to have such evidence. And it's a contradiction to think that there could be a supernatural visitation that could prove the non-existence of the supernatural.

I, otoh, could find new information. A supernatural visitation. A psychic telling me things that no person could possibly know without supernatural help. Something happening which is impossible.

But, as I said, it's not really a choice at that point. I can't choose to ignore things of a certain nature.

Linna Heartlistener wrote:

Holsety wrote:I believe that, in accordance with the fact that Abraham argued with god to save good men in a city of evil, it is our place to challenge god, fate, or whatever rules over us.

You get props from me for bringing one of my sometimes-favorite and one of the most troubling passages in the Bible.

One of the important aspects of the story is that it shortly follows, perhaps immediately follows, IIRC, the story of the sacrifice of the ram (which of course one can't help but link to the sacrifice of Jesus). Abraham is perfectly willing to give back to god the gift of laughter. But he isn't willing to let two cities of bad men be destroyed on account of a relatively small portion of good being destroyed. This MAY have to do with Lot being in the city of Soodom. But even if so, this is still something, since Lot is a relative who IIRC dealt with Abraham in "bad faith" at some point over the course of genesis (doesn't Lot get the better end of a herd-splitting deal?).

Naaah. A lot of your posts on different threads just are things that it's hard to respond to w/out sidetracking the thread. But in a good way, they are pieces of a consistent pattern.

My suggestion is, at times, to try and respond to a few bite-sized portions, if not the "whole meal." That's what I do when the "whole" is a little too tough to try and deal with.

Hey rus, got any ice? Never heard of this before. Heh