-->
@Theweakeredge
It is also definition 1 in Merriam Webster's collegiate dictionary.
The Supreme or Ultimate Reality.
I am Gay - if your god told you to murder me, would you murder me?
Posts
Total:
458
-->
@Mopac
Which we have already discussed - A) IS overruled by Oxford's which has different interpretations of Supreme being (which is the only one alluded to there) and that B) Most references that you get otherwise are from religious claims, not actual facts.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I see, Brother that the failed Monk Mopac has steered the argument away from the awkwardness and embarrassment that is raised by the opening post and onto his usual BS about the "ultimate reality".
It is, and always will be, his only unprovable argument. He hasn't even attempted to tell us if he even agrees with the vile biblical verse concerning the death penalty for Homosexuals and their sexual acts to be an "abomination" to god.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Supreme Being and Ultimate Reality mean the same thing.
We've been over this.
If you don't want to call The Ultimate Reality God, thas t is your business. To us orthodox, that is what God means. If you want to know what we believe, you have to use our language. If you go into any area of study, you have to use the language of that study.
-->
@Mopac
The thing is, that assumes your conclusion, and that is literally the only piece of evidence you've given to support your reasoning. (That god is true)
-->
@Stephen
If laws were passed that dictated that sodomy or sexual immorality deserved punishment, I wouldn't see anything wrong with this.
Hope thst clears things up.
Perverts should be grateful that the laws are so relaxed, because they certainly are not wntitled to be treated so kindly. If people who cheated on their spouses were prosecuted, I would say the cheaters had it coming.
Just to make it clear that I am not simply picking on those who wear leather assless chaps
-->
@Theweakeredge
My position is not a logical conclusion. That is why your request for me to make it so is not reasonable. In fact, that is our biggest critique of western theology. Scholasticism. Overly rationalistic. Misses the point.
Your worldview descends from scholasticism.
The Ultimate Reality was revealed to us as being God.
Certainly nothing else could be a greater God than this.
-->
@Mopac
I don't find your definition convincing nor accurate. You are literally a record player scratched to repeat the same thing over and over again because you don't know how to actually refute arguments. And that's not an ad hominem, that's literally whats been happening.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
There is nothing unreasonable about what I am saying. Which is, you have no hope of understanding us as long as you refuse to use language as we do.
You do this because you have no love of truth. If you cared about what was true, you'd adopt a more charitable attitude for the sake of knowledge.
-->
@Mopac
I'm like this exactly because I care about the truth, I'm skeptical of things that don't give valid evidence to support them. Like you've given no justification beyond the bare bones for any of your claims.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You might think you care about the truth, but because you have no charity I know this isn't the case.
-->
@Mopac
I actually do give charity to claims, do you not remember the two first pages where I let you present your entire theory? How I've literally asked over and over again for you to actual prove your stance but all you do is repeat yourself. Yes you do have to prove yourself, because like it or not, whenever you make a claim that god is as you've described you are making an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've presented, exactly zero.
Instead you put me in a box, that way you can dismiss everything I say.
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."
-->
@Mopac
Cool beans
Good, I'm glad you agree there (This in reference to you saying you disavow conversion therapy) You say I'm unwilling to give your god a chance? Fine. Let's grant that position, that god is real for the sake of this conversation. Souls are real, all of that stuff. So. Why is being gay a mental illness?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Partially also a response to the other topic as well
What, disprove nihilism?
It disproves itself pretty easily.
Nietzsche defined nihilism for us pretty clearly..
"That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs-no 'thing-in-itself.' This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind."
Sometimes this is also interpreted as, "there are only relative truths", but no absolute truth.
If there is no absolute truth, then even the claim of there being relative truths is meaningless. Without an absolute truth, or ultimate reality, there can be no truth at all, relative or otherwise. That is why nihilism is sometimes called "the doctrine of negation". In the end, it not only destroys all of reality, but it even destroys itself.
Nihilism in itself is like an affirmation that can be summed up like this...
"It is the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth!"
There is nothing rational about nihilism. It is actually the embrace of irrationality. It is foundationally anti-intellectual.
Everything post nihilism in philosophy is the grappling with nihilism. Absurdism is the most common way to grapple with nihilism.
If there is no truth and life is meaningless, then I will create my own reality! I will make my own meaning!
From the orthodox perspective, this is how people come to worship idols. They abandon The Truth as being their God, and instead make some created thing their god.
From our perspective, homosexuality has its root in idolatry. It has to do with the worship of created things. The form of a man. The feeling of sexual pleasure.
But what is the easiest way to fall into idolatry? Reject absolute truth, only accepting relative truths. What does truth become? This absurd thing that really amounts to whatever it is a person wills truth to be. Of course it is corrupting.
If The Truth is your God, and you sincerely worship God, it has a much different effect on the psyche that worshipping any created thing. Worshipping created things leads to delusion, and the sliding further and further into delusion. Worshipping The Truth however, gradually makes one less delusional.
-->
@Mopac
- My response that I had accidentally put on the other topic (This is to nihilism)
- No, this is not what I meant, what I meant by nihilism (Since you seem to like Merriam Webster) is this:Definition of nihilism1a: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless Nihilism is a condition in which all ultimate values lose their value.— Ronald H. Nashb: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths2a: a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibilitybcapitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassinationSpecifically, 1b, would be the definition I ascribe to. I definitely don't agree with 1a, 2a, or 2b.
- Specifically of moral truths, now, I don't think we can be 100% certain about nearly anything, but I do believe there to be objective truths, so only the portion of "Does not believe truth or morality to lay on objective grounds" applies to me.
-->
@Theweakeredge
All these different forms of nihilism are simply branches off the trunk of nihilism.
Which is a funny thing to say, because nihilism is a dead and rotting tree.
-->
@Mopac
If there is no truth and life is meaningless, then I will create my own reality! I will make my own meaning!From the orohodox perspective, this is how people come to worship idols. They abandon The Truth as being their God, and instead make some created thing their god.
I haven't addressed these so here I go - I clarified that I didn't accept that form of nihilism, so problem solved there, as for the "I will make my own meaning" Kind of, but not all the way.
I parse morality pretty easily - and I would the same way even if I did believe in god - that while there isn't a known objective standard which connects to morality, I would simply use an objective standard. We are humans are we not? Therefore we ought to do what benefits our species at the very least ourselves. From there I extrapolate that we ought to value human welfare (their well-being so to speak). That's how I ground my morality. And I promise you it does nothing but present ideas which are healthy for people. By definition.
As for the false idol, I don't know any specifics of your god. What do they do? What do they object to? What are they?
-->
@Mopac
Except its kind of not, especially not the form I specified.
I don't believe in any objective moral truths, I believe there are true things, and that there is truth in general.
-->
@Theweakeredge
From our worldview, we consider every human to be made in the image of God. So to love mankind is very much like loving God.
From our perspective, homosexuality has its root in idolatry. It has to do with the worship of created things. The form of a man. The feeling of sexual pleasure.
Okay so - it has to do with worshiping false idols, how so? All it is, is feeling sexual/romantic attraction to another male while being male. Could you also elaborate on what you mean by "Form of a man" and "the feeling of sexual pleasure"?
But what is the easiest way to fall into idolatry? Reject absolute truth, only accepting relative truths. What does truth become? This absurd thing that really amounts to whatever it is a person wills truth to be. Of course it is corrupting.
But I'm not willing anything to be true, I'm using corroborating evidence to verify every claim I make. I'm not pulling it out of thin air. I have reasons that are rational and justified. Also you mention idolatry again, why does it correlate to being homosexual and why is it that you only object to one way of falling into it? I don't accept relative truths except on a moral basis. I deal in facts.
If The Truth is your God, and you sincerely worship God, it has a much different effect on the psyche that worshipping any created thing. Worshipping created things leads to delusion, and the sliding further and further into delusion. Worshipping The Truth however, gradually makes one less delusional.
I don't worship anything in particular. Nothing actually. And I suppose accepting the truth would have the effect of making you less delusional, but why do you specifically have to worship it to get more truth?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Most people who are casualties of the nihilistic spirit that permeates our age are unwitting victims.
-->
@Mopac
So, then we agree? At least at a basic level? We should care about the well-being of humans?
-->
@Mopac
Umm.... I suppose? Am I a victim of it? I've explained my position pretty in-depth, and it seems very different from your view of nihilism.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Sure, on some basic level.
But if you don't have a love for the truth above all things, whatever idolatry pollutes your heart would compromise your ability to love purely.
That is really what our spiritual discipline is built around, following the commandment, which is to love God with all your the heart, soul, mind, and strength. Then to love your neighbor as yourself.
Or as it is also written,
"the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned"
The pure heart is very important.
But going back to the nihilist thing. Most atheists probably don't consider themselves nihilists, but as the God we believe i is the ultimate reality, to say our God doesn't exist is an overt confession of nihilism. The philosophers of the 1800s had a better understanding of what atheism was than people these days. They were also very open about being anti-Christianity. The people who followed these philosophers are the ones that have sculpted the dominant worldview. They have also changed language in such a way as to make orthodox Christianity unintelligible. When we say one thing, an image of something other than what we are actually saying is imagined.
Most people who call themselves atheists don't really understand what that means. If they did, they wouldn't call themselves atheists. They might at the very least say, "I know God exists, but I don't believe any religion".
In fact, that is what a deist is. Deist is simply the Latin equivilent of the Greek word "Theist". So to profess deism, or theism is to say, "There is an ultimate reality".
Of course, deism came to eventually be understood as a particular conception of God, but from a purely etymological sense it is simply a confession that a god or God exists.
-->
@Mopac
The problem is the definition you're using. Nobody accepts that definition so by their definition of god they would indeed be atheists. I don't even accept that definition of god and I study philosophy, most philosophers don't accept that definition of god, etc, etc... And btw, because you claim that someone is a nihilist whenever they don't accept god, ou are implicitly making a claim, which does mean you still have a BoP.
Also.... you don't really answer my questions, I was being charitable and its all a bunch of circular thinking and fallacious reasoning.
-->
@Theweakeredge
If nobody accepted this definition, it wouldn't be in the dictionary.
If nobody accepted this definition, how do you explain me?
I am no innovator here.
The only people who reject this definition are atheists, and that is because if they were to accept this definition, it would reveal them as fools.
The atheistic philosophers of the 1800s at least had the balls to be open about their rebellion against reality. Nowadays, because we are several generations into this nihilistic worldview dominating.the world, people are more confused and deceived.
This is how you get people to consent to something they don't really consent to. Confuse language, and people will consent to being enslaved or even destroyed.
-->
@Theweakeredge
There has been a very intentional effort in philosophy for the last couple hundred years to replace Christianity. The result is that words don't mean the same thing anymore. If you can't change what was written, change the meaning of the words that were written!
-->
@Mopac
If laws were passed that dictated that sodomy or sexual immorality deserved punishment, I wouldn't see anything wrong with this. Hope thst clears things up.
But laws have been passed by god himself. He tells us why and tell us the punishment. Do we have to keep repeating these horrific biblical verses over & over to you?
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
" surley" it says. So you are agreeing that homosexuals should be put to death.
Perverts should be grateful that the laws are so relaxed, because they certainly are not entitled to be treated so kindly.
Define "perverts". And tell me why they are not worthy of life?
If people who cheated on their spouses were prosecuted, I would say the cheaters had it coming.
I agree. But we are not talking man and wife, here are we. Stop trying to deflect.
Just to make it clear that I am not simply picking on those who wear leather assless chaps
Then what are you doing if you say that homosexual should be "put to death" ?
here has been a very intentional effort in philosophy for the last couple hundred years to replace Christianity. The result is that words don't mean the same thing anymore. If you can't change what was written, change the meaning of the words that were written!
That is among the most honest and truthful words I have ever seen on written this forum. And I agree with this entirely.
We are being told Islam is a "race" so they can introduce blasphemy laws and hate crimes against Islam Muslims. They are attempting to redefine the meaning of the word 'phobic' so to make it a discriminatory criminal offence to say anything about Muslims.
It is a shame you didn't comment on my thread about this very subject, Mopac. I am surprised that we have actually found some common ground
" PM Theresa May refuses to commit to adopting recommended Islamophobia definition".
-->
@Mopac
Because A) The definition from the dictionary is based on old religious texts, as evidenced by the quote and the "where it comes from" section in Merriam, and is, therefore, an assertion that one has to defend or be reasonable incorrect for making. And the Oxford straight up doesn't agree, you have to interest a nonsensical definition of a word within your definition in order for it to match your definition. My point is, most experts, religious and otherwise, do not define it as you have, because they realize that it is begging the question.
Athiest rebel against the assumption that there is a god, not against reality, that would be the people assuming their to be an unproven aspect of reality, aka, the theists who rebel against reality.