Total posts: 3,192
-->
@Stephen
I ask you this , how then can a dead man walk if he is "dead"43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. ^^^^^^^^^^So going by your own understanding and reasoning, the scripture states "The man" that is "dead", but was walking out of the tomb. How can he walk anywhere if he is physically "dead".!!??
Check your references before you put out this sophistry. Your original reference, the one that was subject to dispute, was the King James Version; this most recent reference is from the New International Version. You have conveyed to me that you have either the unwillingness or the incapacity to support your claim. Once again, I will entertain this no more. Good luck in your future debates, Stephen.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Because "abnormality" is not the same as illness. Illness is a pathological condition which produces symptoms. There has yet to be a mental "illness" that either fits the aforestated description or produces a biochemical basis. This is the reason the APA rarely includes--if at all--the term "illness" when publishing the DSM (currently DSM-5.) The APA has instead opted to use the term "disorder," which is not the same as illness. The inclusion of "illness" in psychiatric lexicon is merely the residual of Jean-Martin Charcot's failed attempt to prove that hysteria had a neuropathological basis.Would you like to provide premises for why you think there are zero people on the planet with mental illness
So as of yet, it has not been demonstrated that anyone on the planet has a mental "illness."
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Go back and look at the examples so you understand to be carful not to twist context for future references.
Provide me a direct reference.
It’s about falsifiability. You can’t disprove magic exists.
If that's your premise, then you should not argue that magic doesn't exist.
Having a lack of evidence does’t prove one way or another.
Yes. So why are trying to shift the burden of proof? You are the one who made the claim that the flood was a "made up" story. And then when asked to support your claim, you attempted to shift the burden of proof by asserting that only those who claim that it happened have an onus using a bastardized logic. Can you support your claim? Will you support your claim? If not, then drop your argument.
Your whole belief system is an argument from ignorance.
What is "my" belief system?
The only reason we’re having this discussion is because you’re the first one to ask me for burden of proof. I could have easily asked you first, but I knew it would be a waste of time.
That's on you. And so far the only waste of time is this posturing you've continued after I've demanded several times that you support your claim. If you're not going to support your claim, you are within your discretion to refuse me a response. But I will consider it a dropped argument.
It depends on what’s convenient. If it’s the best way to get to the truth, then yeah, I’m all for it.
Your convenience doesn't matter; that which you are "all for" doesn't matter; logical consistency matters since you are invoking onus probandi. And thus far, you haven't applied any logical consistency to your arguments. Support your claims or drop them. It's a simple task.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
This is the third time; enjoy the rest of your night, sir.You are a typical gnostic heretic trying to undermine the faith with knowledge falsely so called.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You misunderstand what we do. We do not worship pagan gods.It matters very little where the idea of swinging a censor came from. We do not honor pagan gods in our practices. We explain why we do what we do. There is no hidden agenda.
I do believe in your individual sincerity; I cannot say the same for your religion's elite. Once again, they are purposefully disguising their pagan practices using Christianity in order to pervert Christianity. The regular churchgoer is considered "profane." There's a right hand path and a left hand path (paths being interpretations.) The left hand path (Lucifferianism) purposefully mimics the right hand path (Christianity and Ancient Hebraic Religions.) Instead the Luciferians argue that their figures (e.g. Heru, Horus, Tammuz, Nimrod, etc.) are the placeholders of figures like Jesus. Their trinity is the Father, The Mother, and the Son/Hermaphrodite (and this is the reason I press the issue with praying to Mary even in "appreciation.")
Do I believe in your heart of hearts that you're praying, and wholeheartedly indulging pagan worship? No. But that's not my point. Your religion's elite surreptitiously are including and have included pagan practices and customs. Your everyday parishioner is considered among the profane. And they need the masses to perform their rituals.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You've already made this argument; and I've already addressed it.We Orthodox are not Roman Catholic. We have never subscribed to the doctrine of Papal supremacy, and Rome trying to exert authority over the entire church is part of why it is a schismatic church. They are not Orthodox Catholics.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You are looking at created things.
Okay.
You are confused by trying to associate the way a symbol is used by one culture and context with how a symbol is used by another culture and context.
No I am not. My statements do consider cultural influence and contexts. (In fact, I spent some time going over for example, the "travels" of the Crossier a.k.a. the Lituus a.k.a. The Crook.) I'm not the one here confused. I understand your devotion to your religion. And I also understand that my arguments will be met with resistance. (It's not the first time.) You don't need to defend yourself, much less attempt to insult me.
You are confused by symbols with no innate meaning. That is incredibly superstitious.
So now these symbols have no meaning?
You will never come to true knowledge of The Way like this. It is folly.
My way has nothing to do with your beliefs of "the Way." I do not believe that I'm particularly enriched by shedding light on Catholicism's pagan aspects. I submit it solely for knowledge's sake, and because it's pertinent to this thread's subject matter.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You don't know our practices or beliefs. You don't get to tell us what we believe. If you refuse to be corrected, I have identified you as a gnostic heretic. Aka the ancient practice of being a know-it-all dipshit.The cure for your condition is humility and charity. Without that, you will continue to falsely believe you have knowledge, and you continue to walk in the dark.
You can attempt to insult me at your discretion; but it doesn't change the origins of your practices, customs, and rituals. It doesn't change the subtext and the connection that your practices currently have to the Babylonian/Kemetic Mysteries. And I've already stated this: I suspect most Catholics are unaware of the pagan subtext in their customs and rituals. So I would be far, far from arguing that they are confederate in Paganism. I would however make that accusation of the bishops, cardinals, and of course the pontif himself, The Pope. (And for those interested look up Magisterial Privilege where the Pope must partake in child abuse, ritual blood sacrifice, and blood drinking.)
However, if all you intend to do is extend this discussion with nothing more than diatribes and harangues, then enjoy the rest of your night, sir.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
A reply in which you respond to me in context for fuck sake.
And that context is?
Did you read the rest of what I said?
Yes I did. But it wasn't relevant. The only part that mattered was the folly you asserted: "the burden of proof should be on the person claiming something happened, not on someone claiming it didn’t, do you agree?" This is merely a contrivance pedaled typically by some illogical atheists to elide their onus. And it's categorically incorrect. Once again, the burden of proof rests with anyone who affirms a claim. Because proof is meant to substantiate its "Truth." But if you want me to explain this using your example, then I will of course oblige.
if someone said unicorns don’t exist, would you expect them to need to prove that they don’t? No.
Yes, you would. Their premise, "p," is "Unicorns don't exist." They would be arguing its Truth. This premise is not true tautologically; it's not true a priori. In order to ascribe this premise a truth value, you must substantiate its truth. You cannot argue, p, "unicorns don't exist," therefore, q, "unicorns don't exist." And if you argue that the failure of your opponent to substantiate the contrary, i.e. not p ("Unicorns do exist") validates your premise p "Unicorns don't exist," then you'd be arguing from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) a informal logical fallacy that denotes a proposition true upon failure to prove and substantiate the contrary.
So no, there's nothing logical about asserting that the burden of proof rests with the person claiming something happened. Stating that "something happened" and stating that "something didn't happen" are both affirmations. Both require substantiation.
Proving a positive is much more feasible than disproving a positive. It’s practical to falsify (prove ((a statement or theory)) to be false) positive evidence, it’s not however practical to falsify negative evidence.
It's not a matter of your convenience; it's a matter of logical consistency. And nothing you've described thus far conforms with any sound logical metric. I'll tell you the same thing I told Mopac: don't take me at my word. Feel free to verify or falsify anything I state.
With that said, provide support to your claims, or drop/withdraw the point.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
then why don’t you reply to them as such.
Which reply are you seeking?
The burden of proof should be on the person claiming something happened, not on someone claiming it didn’t, do you agree?
This is folly, and a common mistake among those whose knowledge of logic is merely novice. The burden of proof rests with any who affirms a claim, whether it proposes or negates. After all, a negation in and of itself is an affirmation. So you are responsible to the onus it creates. Any assumption that your argument is validated by failure to prove the contrary denotes an argumentum ad ignorantium (argument from ignorance.)
You argued that the flood was a made up story. You are affirming that the story of flood is made up.
You also state that it isn't like Christianity existed hundreds and thousands of years before it became the norm/state-sponsored. That is another affirmation.
Support your claims.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
We do not believe in the immaculate conception, nor do we idolize Mary.
You do idolize Mary when you include her in your prayers. You can call it gnostic bullshit, but you're not supposed pray to anyone other than God. You pray to deities by definition.
More pseudo-gnostic horsehit.I hope you don't take offense at me saying.that, it isn't intended to be an attack on you. Moreso the people who have gaught you this nonsense.
It's not Gnostic bullshit. Do your research. Or readings. Read on Bible concordances and research the etymology of the terms used if need be. And I don't take offense even when my debate opponents attempt to insult me. You don't know enough about me to insult me.
That is not at all what the eucharist is.
That's exactly what it is. But you don't have to just take me at my word. Anyone reading this, feel free to verify or falsify anything I submit to this discussion's purview. (You should do that as protocol, anyway.) Research the topics extensively, and if I've provided erroneous information, then feel free to let me know. I take no qualms having my errors shown. But to call my responses "gnostic bullshit" is not a counterargument; it's an emotional reaction. I've told you already, I'm neither a gnostic nor a neognostic. I do not converse with Gnostics. I didn't receive a youtube education on gnosticism. I read extensively. That has always been the case. Not that it would be particularly relevant even if the source was gnostic given that any qualification of their arguments based on their gnosticism would denote an ad hominem argument a.k.a. appeal to motive. When I do research I cast a wide net, so I'm fairly confident that I'm not pedaling "gnostic bullshit."
There has never been any controversy in the church about the resurrection occuring on Sunday. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't really matter because we can construct our calendar however we want to.
Because it wouldn't have happened on Sunday, if Jesus died on Friday. He was taken to the tomb just before sunset wasn't he? That would mean, even if you counted Friday, Jesus should have resurrected earliest by Monday. And this is based on the Roman calendar.
Most people who buy into gnostic misinformations are unaware of the origins of these lies.
This is not an argument; this is the submission of speculation in order to argue ad hominem.
You don't understand our faith at all. Point blank. If you dispute me on this, you are telling me you know better what I believe than I do. You would also be saying something about how seriously I take understanding my faith. You are also denying everything we believe and claiming we all believe something different than what we actually do.
I do not claim to "understand your faith" at least not as an individual; I claim only to understand the subtext of your rituals, practices, and customs. And if you are included in this, it would be only in your capacity as an extension of the aforestated--i.e. being "Catholic."
It should be obvious that I take my faith very seriously.
And I take my industry seriously as well. Except I'm not the one attempting to insult.
Though what you claim is false, the church is certainly in its right to take captive pagan practices and put them to the obedience of Christ. If this is how you reach a particular people, why not?
What "right" gives the Church discretion to assume Pagan practices and "put them to the obedience of Christ" as a means to appeal to a particular audience? Your statement doesn't make sense. If the point is to a cater to and/or reach a particular people than the pagan practices aren't being compelled into obedience because the modus is to satisfy the preferences of people; since when has that ever been the dynamic between people and the word of God? No, you're arguing it the other way around. And that's my point.
You are talking nonsense. The Church left the synagogue long before Kaballa was a thing and long before the Kazars became Jewish. This isn't a modern influence. We have been practicing the same liturgy for over a thousand and a half years. The liturgy that has been the standard since then was based off an earlier liturgy that was a great deal longer.
You haven't been reading carefully. The Kabbalah/Cabala is merely a (Semitic) derivative of the Babylonian/Kemetic mysteries. The Kabbalah and Luciferianism emerged (officially) in the 13-14th centuries. But their disciplines have been passed down for millennia. And note, I associated the Kazhars with Caucasian Jews which is very analogous with what the Catholics are doing to Christianity. Once again, I'd recommend reading the book.
The point is, we know where all of this stuff comes from.
Do you? Your decorum is more reactionary than inquisitive.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
*sigh* read what I’ve said again. You cherry pick what I say.When I say “hundreds of thousands” you say “hundreds”.When I say “norm/state sponsored” you say “state sponsored”.Stop picking the low hanging fruit and actually reply to me in context.When you said “that’s not an argument”, it wasn’t meant to be one.I can reply to every single thing you say, but what’s the point if you’ll just twist my replies.
How can I twist your words when your words are available verbatim for everyone to see?
It isn’t like Christianity existed for hundreds of thousands of years before it became the norm/state sponsored.
Postdiluvian figures, are you serious? The flood is a made up story.
Can I take it that you have no support for these claims?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The immaculate conception is a doctrine concerning Mary being born perfect and without sin. It is actually a doctrine that The Roman Catholic Church came up with as a solution to one of their deviations from Orthodoxy.The deviation being that they believe that humanity inherited the guilt of the sins commited in the.garden of Eden. The Orthodox position is actually that we inherited the mess caused from it, not the guilt.We do not understand original sin the same way.So no, actually neither I or the Orthodox Church accepts the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Mary was a regular woman just like anyone else, particularly pious surely. The thing that makes her stick out is her relationship to Jesus. As The Church is the body of Christ, in a way, Mary is seen as our mother. When we remember the saints during our liturgy we always make sure to mention Mary first. We certainly do not make her out to be God.
But that's exactly what you're doing by including her in your prayers. You're not supposed to pray to anyone but God--especially considering your statement, "Mary was a regular woman just like anyone else..." Even if you admire her relationship with Jesus, you're not supposed to idolize it (e.g. "Mary is seen as our 'mother.'") The "Virgin Mary" is a reference to the Kemetic tale of Asset and Asar. Since Asar was his own father, Asset was said to be "immaculate." She is said have to given birth to Asar without a man, and Asar was both her consort and her son, as well as the reincarnation of his father.
From the Nicene-Constantinople creed.."We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins."
Baptism is an allusion to the reincarnation of Asar (a.k.a. Tammuz, Oannes, etc.) After being thrown into the water after his death, he re-emerged as Heru, also known as Oannes also known as Dagon the Fish god. When John spoke of Baptism in the Bible, he meant only to incorporate the holy spirit. Any mention of water was rhetorical.
It is the high point and climax of our liturgy. It is an institution established by Christ himself and faithfully preserved by his apostolic church.
This is another allusion to a pagan mystery known as the death of Baal. Baal was torn a part by wolves at the base of a mountain in one telling. His priests were known as Can (which would inspire Canaan and the Canaanites.) The consumption of the bread and wine is symbolic cannibalism. (Can of Baal.) It represents the death of Baal. It was never an "institution" established by Christ himself (But then again, that depends on which Bible you read.) The Eucharist claims to be a symbolic allusion to the last supper, and that's part of the perversion.
Most priests(more accurately they are referred to as presbyters, because technically we are a nation of priests)are married. The preference is actually for presbyters to be married. Bishops tend to be selected among monastics or presbyters who outlived their wives. That is the preference.There have always been exceptions, but they wouldn't be the norm.Are the nuns celibate?Of course! A nun is a female monastic. Monastics are always celibate. Some people are called to this particular way of life. For those who are not, marriage is the recommended alternative.
Where was it ever ordained that as part of their worship and devotion, a woman can take no husband? Once again this an allusion to the "mother goddess" who demanded that her priests and priestesses take no mate. The nunnery in particular is derivative of the Roman order of the Vestal Virgins who were charged with maintaining the "everlasting fire"--a reference to Tammuz.
In a great way, that is what praying to Mary is like in Orthodoxy.Again, it is really about Jesus.
That's just another way of deifying her as I mentioned above. If it's really about Jesus, then you'd pray to Jesus.
Yes, Bishops have crosiers. They are usually stylized to represent the serpent staff Moses lifted in the wilderness, which in itself typified Christ being raised up on the cross.Sometimes they are also stylized as the Greek letter tau, which resembles some crosses that Romans used for execution.
The lituus staff a.k.a. the crossier are a direct descendant of "the crook" or crooked wand which was carried by Pharaoh Manes and Pharaoh Narmur/Narmer (a.k.a. Cush and Nimrod) and their pontifs. They had spread their teachings of the Kemetic mysteries to the Asyrians and Lydians who were located in Asia Minor. They were also known as the "Luds" or "Ludines." They were competent mariners who would later settle in Central Italy (which later became "Saturnia") and become known as the Estruscans. The Estruscans would later develop the Latin Church, where they practiced augury--disemboweling animals and telling fortunes based on the arrangement--and become incorporated by Constanine in his Holy Roman empire. Constantine was a pagan. Constantine was an adherent to the Babylonian and Kemetic mysteries. Before the battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine claimed to have looked at the Sun and seen a cross of a light. This is not a reference to the Cross at Calvary, but the Ankh which represents the cross of Heru a.k.a Tammuz, especially considering that he looked at "the Sun."
We also call it the feast of the nativity.
Once again, this an allusion to Paganism. December 25 was known as "birth of the Sun" a.k.a. "Horus," who was the reincarnation of Osiris a.k.a. Saturn who died on November 27. (Remember Osiris was reincarnated exactly four weeks after his death denoting the celebration period for "Saturnalia.") Also, Pallestinian winters are notoriously cold so there would have been no Shepherds in the fields, let alone Mary giving birth and placing Jesus in a "manger."
More accurately, they wear crucifixes. The cross is not empty.
You mean the crosses are empty and the crucifixes aren't, right?
We call it Pascha or passover but yeah, we celebrate Easter. It is always on a Sunday. Pascha is a big deal to us, we go all out. It is easily our biggest feast day.
How is Easter on Sunday, if Jesus was supposed to be in the grave three days and three nights? Even if you include Friday (good Friday) it still wouldn't work out to Sunday. Easter is in veneration of the mother goddess "Ishtar" a.k.a. Inanna who was the goddess of sex and fertility. Veneration of her would start in the Spring because vegetation was associated with birth. (Her son Tammuz was also known as the God of vegetation.) Of course, she'd also demand blood sacrifices which is the reason you may notice some widespread murders are always televised at the end of April and the beginning of May. I believe the Wiccan Religion calls this, April 24/31, the "Night of Walpurgis." I think the last "sacrifice" happened last Easter in "Colombo" Sri Lanka. Comlumbia is the "American" greco-roman goddess modeled after Libertas a.k.a. Hecate (mother of witchcrafts) a.k.a. Isis, a.k.a. Ishtar, a.k.a. Inanna (one of her incarnations is also Kali Ma from Hinduism.) The "Columbine" shootings also happened around that time (April 21-31) in 1999. It's all in veneration to Ishtar.
I don't think most so called "gnostics" or "neognostics" do either, so if I were you I wouldn't get my information from them.
I do not get my information from gnostics or neognostics. I get information from reading various books, encyclopedias, and yes, Internet searches. I'm not arguing this against or on behalf of any religion or denomination. I provide this information for knowledge's sake so that any who'd read or listen can have some more information on the context under which their rituals take place. Catholicism is pagan. You may assert that the schism creates a substantial difference between orthodox and roman, but it doesn't create enough of a difference to separate orthodox Catholicism from its pagan practices.
Understand that their only intention is to undermine the faith and cast doubt.
I do not qualify arguments based on the alleged intentions of their author. And I'm not trying to cast doubt on your faith. Note that I argue that Catholicism is paganism, not Christianity in its entirety. Though to be frank, most organized representations of Christian denominations sustain Luciferian customs, whether it be in a diminished or prominent capacity.
Truthfully, a lot of the things we do liturgically are carry overs from Jewish worship in the temple and in the synagogues.
The Jewish worship does not stem from the ancient Hebrews or Israelites, but from the Cabala (Jewish mysticism/occultism.) Most of that which is considered Semitic derivation comes from none other than the Babylonian/Kemetic mysteries. There's an interesting book written by Arthur Koestler called "The Thirteenth Tribe"--for those who are fans of the anime "Ghost in the Shell," you may haven done research toward its inspirations which included "Blade Runner" and "The Ghost in the Machine," also authored by Arthur Koestler. In "The Thirteenth Tribe," Koestler provides an extensive research towards the origin of the Caucasian Jew and modern Judaism. They're rituals actual stem from the Khazar Empire, where their emperor converted them to "Judaism." I'd recommend reading it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Those other verses and my questions prove my claim.No they don't. And questions don't prove.Opinion.And what is more by you refusing to answer those questions proves me right even more.Incorrect.opinion
I've entertained this long enough. Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Rome is in schism BECAUSE of the fact they perverted the faith.
We'll see how sincere this schism is as we continue.
I am sure you don't understand our practices, but I'd be happy to explain any for you.We Do not worship Mary as God. She is a creature. What makes her special is that besides beimg a shining example of saintliness for women as well as men, Jesus Christ received His flesh from her body.We don't have many official doctrines concerning Mary. Other than she was a virgin before, during, and after Jesus' birth, and that she can rightly be called Theotokos or mother of God because she did in fact give birth to God in the flesh, a did raise Him as a mother.
I made a fairly lengthy post near the start of this here topic...... that gives a rough outine of some major differences. Are there more? Probably. Regardless, I don't want anyone to take anything I say that may be a tad polemical to justify mistreatment of anyone. An Orthodox Christian is called to love everyone, even, maybe especially those who persecute us. Besides, there many pious Roman Catholics out there. We should treat eachother with love and respect.
I'll get to the point. I wasn't seeking a particular explanation on your interpretation and your approaches. The first thing I confirmed is that you believe in the immaculate conception. So then I'll just ask:
Do you adhere to baptism?
Do you partake in Holy Communion?
Are your priests/bishops/patriarchs celibate?
Are the nuns celibate?
Do you pray to Mary?
Do your bishops carry the crossiers, a.k.a. The Lituus staffs, a.k.a. the crooked wands?
Do they wear the cross?
Do you celebrate Christmas?
Do you celebrate Easter, particularly Easter Sunday?
I'm not scrutinizing Catholicism to demonize it. Far from it actually. I suspect your everyday Catholic doesn't know the origin of the rituals and customs his Church has him or her practice.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Like Christianity is a perversion of many other religions it took stories from.
How has Christianity "perverted" the many other religions from which you allege it has taken stories? Once again, state sponsored Christianity--particularly Catholicism--is a guise for pagan practices.
As far as state sponsored goes, what are you referring to? Paganism is/was very diverse, both state sponsored and not.It isn’t like Christianity existed for hundreds of thousands of years before it became the norm/state sponsored.
Paganism isn't diverse; it's all either re-tellings or reproductions of the divine triad of ancient Kemetic mythology (i.e. P'tah (father) Sekhmet/Bast (mother) and Nefertem (son)) And Kemetic mythology stems from Babylonian a.k.a. Sumerian mythology: Ba'al, Inanna/Ishtar, and Tammuz/Dumuzi.)
Side Note: For those of you who've seen the Marvel cinematic hit, "Black Panther," they made a reference to Bast (aka Bastet) as the "panther goddess." The fictional Utopia, "Wakanda" is a reference to ancient Kemet. The Marvel Universe itself is a retelling of pagan mythologies--particularly the conflict between the Olympians (Avengers) and the Titans (Thanos.)
And you said that Christianity didn't exist for hundreds of years before it became state-sponsored--care to provide substance/support to this claim? (Note: by the time it was sponsored by the state, it was no longer "Christianity.")
Sounds like you’re going into conspiracy territory about paganism being state sponsored and all that.
"Sounds like" is an impression, and impressions aren't arguments. Conspiracy delineates a crime. But if you want me to make clear that I'm suggesting that the Earth's "elite" practice Pagan religions, particularly Luciferian, then yes, that's exactly my suggestion. Take the U.S. the eye of Horus is on legal tender, particularly, Fiat. Now the "conspiracy theorists" would associate that eye with the "Illuminati." But it's really in reference to Luciferianism.
Postdiluvian figures, are you serious?
Yes, I'm serious. Do you have a counterargument?
The flood is a made up story. It was not an historical event.
Support this.
Don’t treat it as if it is one.
Until you convince me otherwise, I will continue to treat as a "historical event."
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I am an Orthodox Catholic, technically we consider The Church of Rome to be in schism.
If your representation of Orthodox Catholicism is as you claim, then the Church of Rome should be more than just "in schism." As I stated before, Catholicism is a perversion, and purposefully so.
But we certainly do not practice idolatry.
It's not simply idolatry; it's practices, and customs, and yes even clothing. Even their veneration of females a la "Virgin Mary" is in reference to the "mother goddess," Isis. Images are only the start of it.
Before Constantine ever lived, The Church referred to itself as Catholic,
My argument isn't that Catholicism originated with Constantine. My argument is that Constantine was an adherent to the Babylonian and Kemetic mysteries and that he combined/disguised the pagan practices with Christianity to pervert it--what we now know to be modern Catholicism.
It is a protestant accusation against the church that it somehow was corrupted post-Constantine. It is not true, however, and it stands to reason that such an accusation is only leveled against the church to justify the existence of thousands of protestant denominations that are not in communion with The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.Whether this accusation is made in innocence or not, it is still inaccurate.
I am not protestant. I was never raised protestant. I'm not religious at all. I just do a lot of reading. But before I move forward with this, in what ways do you as an Orthodox Catholic differ from Roman Catholics? I'd rather receive the information from an adherent directly. And please, be as extensive as necessary.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have proved my claim.
What have you proved? Where have you proved this? At best, you made reference to Jesus's using the term "dead" in two different contexts (i.e. "let the dead bury their dead.") But you haven't substantiated at all the description you claim the term, "dead," bears in the context of your reference. You're merely pointing out other references in attempt to make the connection. You have not demonstrated how the description suits the context. Your description of how they were using the term dead makes no sense especially when reading all 57 verses you referenced.
Those other verses and my questions prove my claim.
No they don't. And questions don't prove. Questions are inquisitive, not conclusive.
And what is more by you refusing to answer those questions proves me right even more.
Incorrect. Your reasoning is fallacious; it's known as argument from ingorance a.k.a. argumentum ad ignorantiam. It is an informal logical fallacy that denotes a proposition to be true, in the event that its negation is not affirmed and/or proven true. I spotted this attempt of yours from the very moment you asked your questions. Once again, I'm not going to do you any favors by helping you make your point--i.e. answering contrived questions which assume the veracity of your point; hence, I refuse to answer your questions. It is up to you to help yourself make your points, not I. My capacity in this discussion does not at all inform your affirmations and arguments.
Make and substantiate your point, or drop the argument.
I have pointed out to you that you didn't answer the very first question at post 1. You concentrated on "raising the dead " instead of telling me why Thomas suggested they all die. The question was all to do with death not "raising to the dead" Lazarus .
Don't backpedal. You stated this toward the information of your own claim:
They wanted Lazarus dead because Jesus had "raised him" into the priest hood. The priests believed Jesus to have no authority to do so. This is why they wanted him AND Jesus dead. They were afraid of losing the nation over to its rightful king, Jesus, and newly anointed priest Lazarus.
Then when prodded about Thomas's motivations about seeking to "die with [Lazarus]" using your description and this proposed prospect of being "raised to priesthood," you stated:
Thomas was of a lower ranking status in the movement. He was just an disciple among other disciples.
Are you now dropping this point?
You ignored me when I raised the obvious
I'm not ignoring you; I'm telling you outright that I refuse to answer your questions. And I've given you the reasons for my refusal a few times already.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I would like to correct you there, Catholicism is Christianity. The Church referred to itself as Catholic centuries before Christianity was legal in Rome.
No, Catholicism is Paganism. Once again, I'm making no reference to state-sponsored Christianity. Catholicism and its practices and traditions are pagan, some of which I've already listed. And this was purposefully done by Emperor Constantine who was a student of the Kemetic disciplines. It's possible that Catholicism may at one point have been considered "Christian." After all, Luciferianism is a perversion of Christianity, and Catholicism is Luciferian (e.g. the rosary cross actually is a "T" denoting the cross of Tammuz, which in its early incarnations had a vaginal likeness constructed on top of it.) Not to mention, the statues in their Cathedrals. Or the obelisk in Vatican City which represents the severed penis of Asar (a.k.a. Osiris, a.k.a. Cronus, a.k.a. Saturn.)
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Luciferianism like Christianity has various doctrines and a lot of dogma surrounding it.
No, Luciferianism is a perversion of Christianity. Lucifer is a perversion of the Christian God. It's not simply two diametrically opposed disciplines.
That being said Paganism is older than Christianity.
As far as State sponsored religions, yes Paganism is "older."
Keep in mind many of the original archetypical stories aren’t pagan.What do you mean by access?
Exactly as I stated above: you're assuming that because the monarchs sponsored and sanctioned Paganism (and they still do) that access to the information which would bring Christianity into prominence (and later Catholicism after Constantine) must have been acquired at or some time after. But it was always there. The earliest "religions" were monotheistic, or at the very least "henotheistic." And polytheism (a.k.a. Paganism) derived from the Babylonian/Sumerian and Kemetic practices--most notably through postdiluvian figure, Ham.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
No it's not. Because as you say above and , what I "believe is irrelevant", especial to any and all theists. You are all very good at that. Those questions are genuine questions that you simply cannot answer. That now is clearly evident. Those unanswered questions concerning this whole of the enigmatic and ambiguous tale prove me right, even if you don't answer them. And again, you don't have to believe what I believe do you.
Yes, it is. Your point can and should be made without anyone providing you any sort of "answers." (Because you're the one who's supposed to provide the answers since it is your claim.) And the fact that you believe that "those unanswered questions concerning this whole of the enigmatic and ambiguous tale prove [you] right, even if [I] don't answer them" conveys your attempt to argue from ignorance. Your questions rely primarily on your rejection of the possibility of resurrection. More so, that the context under which Jesus spoke with his apostles categorically rejects the possibility of resurrection. You have not substantiated this. Instead you're relying on your contrived questions which attempt to defer the onus of casting doubt to those who question and scrutinize your argument, rather than your providing substance toward your own affirmation.
I've debated for several years--decades even--and I know when someone is trying avoid their onus. You clearly are.
I find it amazing that you are asking me to provide proof and substance to for what I believe
That which you find "amazing" is irrelevant. I'm not engaging you in this discussion to read about that which "you feel;" I'm engaging you in this discussion so that I can read about that which you can substantiate. And thus far, you have substantiated very little; you ought to address that.
Ducking is exactly what you are doing. Your'e problem here is that while your struggling to respond my questions with filibustering and protests of why you won't be answering my questions, you have became so fixated on "raising " the dead.
I would not duck that which I have no obligation to answer. And don't backpedal, now: you said that raising the dead was a metaphorical ritualistic appointment to the priesthood and/or advancement in "the movement." Substantiate this claim especially in light of the fact Thomas was already an apostle. And I'm only "fixated" on that which you state informs your claim.
It was a good and fare question, you ignored my reply.What did Lazarus die of?What was he doing in the tomb when it was, apparently, common knowledge that Jesus could "raise the dead"?
You're addressing the scrutiny with questions. Because once again, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. And I've come to the presumption that you have no answers. Yet this doesn't qualify your allegations that others (e.g. ethang5) are "wrong." If this were simply an attempt by you to engage others in an exploratory exercise of semantic and linguistic malleability, that would be one thing--perhaps, even entertaining. But this is your attempt at confirming your rejection of the possibility of resurrection by casting doubt on the language. That's fair game. But that means you, as the sole author of that claim, are responsible for providing substance and/or proof towards your affirmation--no one else. Instead, you're assuming the veracity of your claim rather than inferring it, and relying on others to cast doubt (by using contrived questions) to substantiate your claim. That's textbook argument from ignorance a.k.a. argumentum ad ignorantium.
Provide proof and/or substance to your claim, or drop the argument.
I asked you:How stupid were these Chief Priests not to realise that If Jesus had "raised a dead man" to life once before that he would simply do it again if they succeeded in their mission of murdering Lazarus "whom he lovest" ? You avoided it.You haven't haven't told me why YOU think the chief priests wanted Lazarus Dead? You avoided it.I asked you:Why would these priests want Lazarus dead? You avoided it.I asked you:Tell me how can the dead bury the dead? You avoided it.I asked you:How did Jesus know that Lazarus was dead? You avoided it.I asked you:Why would Jesus allow these apparently young sane healthy men to die? You avoided it.I asked you:Did we hear any protestations from the life giving Jesus concerning the ridiculousness and pitiful waste of life that Thomas was proposing!????You avoided it.I asked you:Did they die? You avoided it.I asked you:Did Jesus "raise Thomas and the pother disciples from the dead"? You avoided it.I asked you:What was they worried about? If the chief priests who sought to kill Lazarus had succeeded in putting Lazarus to a real and physical and mortaldeath wouldn't Jesus have simply "raised him from the dead" again? He was after all, the only disciple that it is mentioned that "Jesus loved".John 11:3. You avoided it.
Repeating your questions doesn't change a thing; alleging that I'm avoiding your questions doesn't change a thing; stop relying on me to answer your questions, and rely on your industry as a debater to incorporate evidence in your affirmation. To put it succinctly: make and substantiate your point, or drop it.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
The Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Flood.Similarities: Gilgamesh builds a massive boat to fit his family, friends and animals on before wrathful gods flood the world. He then sends a bird out to find land as Noah did.Ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis.Similarities: Nudity, female temptress, force evacuation of a natural paradise.Prince Siddhartha Gautama’s (the Buddha’s) journey to become enlightened and Jesus’s experience with the devil in the desert.Similarities: Fasting and temptation by “demons”.Hercules and Samson.Similarities: Super-Strength and killed lions with their bare hands.Saktideva (Hinduism) and Jonah.Similarities: both get swallowed by a massive fish after a storm destroys their vessels. Both survive.
There are similarities between Christianity and Paganism a la Luciferianism. (And yes all pagan religions are Luciferian because their gods are incarnations of the Luciferian trinity.) But this is done on purpose. Christianity is known as the "right hand path" and Paganism is the "left hand path." The Christian trinity is "the father, the son, and the holy spirit," and the Luciferian trinity is "the father, the mother, and the son/hermaphrodite." Luiferianism is merely a perversion of Christianity. You're presuming that Christians "hijacked" those "stories" because of timelines concerning prominence, not access.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't need you to accept anything . You don't have to accept what I have wrote OR what I believe for you to answer questions concerning the scriptures, do you? They are simple genuine questions that you are still avoiding without reason/ There is no excuse for you not to address them at all.
Your questions are tantamount to "having me prove you wrong" rather than your "proving your arguments, right." Your argument is that the mention of the dead is in reference to those outside of Jesus's inner circle and that "raising the dead" is a ritualistic advancement in "the movement." You have yet to substantiate this. So I'm not going to do you any favors that place the onus on me to contradict and/or refute you, rather than your providing proof and/or substance to the affirmation of your claim.
Yes, So what? YOURS totally relies on faith without question and not fact. On miracles without proof. And the belief in something that has never been proven or repeated.
Once again, your belief is irrelevant. You lack any observational data to confirm or deny what they witnessed. You're merely assuming an anachronistic consistency to a scientific method, I don't think you fully understand. Remember our dispute is one over description and lexical semantics, not material verification. The only significant and relevant factor is their (Jesus and his disciples') belief in accordance to the translation, not yours. Once again, that is known as context.
Or to some other rank in the movement.
Thomas was of a lower ranking status in the movement. He was just an disciple among other disciples.
Provide substance to this claim.
Then I will assume you have absolutely no intention of affording me the same time and courtesy that I have afforded you.
It's not about "courtesy," it's about your onus.
It is clearly your own belief that makes no sense, Athias. and this is why you are ducking reasonable questions concerning your own scriptures.
What are my beliefs? One of the many issues concerning your arguments is that you make too many assumptions. And I'm not "ducking" reasonable questions concerning [my] own scriptures." I'm "ducking" your attempt to defer your onus and place it on me. Once again, I don't have to prove your arguments wrong; you have to prove your arguments right. This is not a my turn, then your turn dynamic. Until you substantiate your premise, I'm not going to answer any of your questions.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Which Bible? And which stories?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You have asked this twice now and I believe I have addressed it twice already above . So I will make it more clear for you,both with another answer and another question to you, questions of mine that you keep failing to address.Thomas suggests going along to the "raising" of Lazarus and to "die" along with him in the hope that they too may be "raised" to a higher status in the priesthood if not the movement in general. It was all to do with being "raised" i.e. promoted in the ranks of the movement.
I am not avoiding your questions; I have yet to accept your premise because you have not substantiated it. Your premise completely relies on the rejection of the possibility of resurrection and the assumption that raising the dead is a symbolic gesture of granting "priesthood." If that were the case, then your argument, once again, makes no sense. Here, I'll use your words:
To be a part of Jesus's inner circle one had to be " raised from the dead" into the circle of the living.
Thomas was an apostle. So by your description, he was already "raised from the dead." Why would he then suggest that they "die" only to be "raised" again? Even if you were going to argue that he wanted an advanced position in the "priesthood" why would he have "to die" (revert) to advance if he's already in an advanced position (apostle)? Your conjecture, and that's all it is, makes no sense.
Now your turn. try not to avoid them
I will entertain your questions once you substantiate your premise.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Christianity tends to highjack holidays.
Christianity didn't hijack those holidays; those holidays (e.g. Easter Sunday, Christmas, etc.) are being disguised as Christian. I remember mentioning this on some other thread: Catholicism is paganism a la Luciferianism. Easter Sunday is really in veneration of the Sumerian "mother" goddess Ishtar (Eas * ter) aka Innana, and Christmas a.k.a. Saturnalia is in veneration of the roman god, Saturn, who in his Egyptian incarnation was known as Osiris. The 25th of December does not denote the "birth of Jesus," but the reincarnation of Osiris through his son, Horus, which occurred 28 days after his death (November 27.)
Even the papacy is a pagan rite. The headgear they wear is known as "the Mitre" which is by no coincidence shaped like a fish's mouth. This is symbolic of the fish god, Dagon. (This is the reason the practice of "baptism" involves being dipped into bodies of water.) The pope as well as the cardinals carry staffs known as the "crossier" which, when doing research into its past, was known as the "crooked wand." Pope Ratzinger a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI was forced to resign after numerous accounts, depositions, and affidavits informed on his magisterial rights, where he'd participate in child sacrifices and child abuse. And I'm willing to bet Pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio a.k.a. Pope Francis is no different.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Let's entertain your premise and operate under this assumption of yours that "raising the dead" was ritualistic, and that "the dead" was a symbolic demarcation of those spiritually awakened by the word of God, and those who are not, why would Thomas then state that they should go there and die with [Lazarus]? Your conjecture, even with the use of this premise, makes no sense. It continues to be an "enigma" because you have trouble understanding, even when replacing premises, the importance of context.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Because it is a ritualistic "raising".Unless you know and understand the meaning of the phrase "raising the dead", you will never understand this enigmatic verse no more than you will understand the sudden falling down dead of Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, Acts 5. Or " let the dead bury the dead" Matthew 8:22Read this verse and answer my question below it.John 12:9-11 King James Version (KJV)9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.Why would these priests want Lazarus dead?But then if you understand the meaning behind the words "raising the dead" you would understand immediately all of the enigmatic verses where "raising from the dead", "let the dead bury the dead" falling down dead" without explanation, and especially the verse in question , "Let us also go, that we may die with him".
You're grasping. You're taking phrasings with different contexts and attempting to homogenize their descriptions. Once again, your conjecture makes no sense. The disciples were clearly concerned for Jesus's welfare. It also makes clear that the disciples thought that Jesus was talking of Lazarus "resting in sleep," until Jesus outright told them that Lazarus was dead. Why would Thomas then state that they should go there to die with [Lazarus] if Lazarus was already dead? Unless this hasn't already been made clear, I'll state it plainly: you cannot die with someone who's already dead. Furthermore, the conversation takes place under the context that his disciples believe and are concerned that Jesus is going to die if he goes to Judaea.
Your invocation of different references where the term "raising the dead" is used is irrelevant. There wasn't a single writer; the Bible is an anthology of sorts. And therefore, making references to Acts and Matthew hold no significance without context. It doesn't matter what you believe the general use of the terms are throughout the Bible; it matters only how the people in the gospel chapters are using the terms, and how those around them understand it. That's known as context.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It's clear that the verses you reference are talking about the prospect of Jesus's death. They couldn't "die with [Lazarus]" if Lazarus was already dead. But if the disciples were to follow Jesus into Judaea, then there they could "die with him." Not to mention, the chapter starts almost immediately with his disciples warning him that he'd be risking death trying to resurrect Lazarus; if Jesus was going to Judaea to resurrect Lazarus, why would Thomas state that they should go there with Jesus to die with Lazarus? Your conjecture makes no sense. Furthermore, your reference concludes with Jesus's being marked for death by the Pharisees. ethang5's assessment was correct.
It's possible that you just might have a hard time understanding context. I presume this because this is the second time I've seen you take a simple quote and make a mystery out of it. The KJV Bible is difficult to read, so it's understandable. But that should provoke you into humbling yourself to those who are familiar with the text--like ethang5--and, if necessary, solicit an explanation, rather than lash out. It's at least clear to me that you're just trying to make mountains out of molehills in some contrived effort to demonstrate contradiction. It won't work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's the most durable and reliable and practical standard I've encountered so far.I don't pretend "it can never lead to inaccurate predictions" but it is certainly "less wrong" than all known alternatives.
Then, clearly, you've made a choice. Alternatives denote options among which you've discriminated and placed your trust, even though no one option has earned 100% of your trust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you trust this standard 100%?REAL-TRUE-FACT must be scientifically verifiable with a confidence of at least 2 SIGMA and or logically necessary.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
When you dream that you've driven your motorcycle off the edge of a cliff, and you wake up suddenly, at that moment you realize that "some ideas and perceptions are unreliable".
What was unreliable about that dream?
EXCELLENT POINT.Ok, GNOSIS is yours and yours alone, no need to talk about it or anything, no need to "prove" it to anyone, no need to determine exactly how true or how false it is, I mean, you can if you want to, but nobody else gives a hoot.
How does the part you've emboldened inform or qualify the veracity of Gnosis?
LANGUAGE IS ITSELF AN INTERSUBJECTIVE EXERCISE.
It can be.
Language ONLY exists to facilitate communication BETWEEN different people.
I disagree. While I don't seek to contest that language is used primarily for communication between different people, that demarcates neither its existence nor its utility. Language can be used to identify and/or distinguish thoughts even to oneself. One can, for example, use language to distinguish sensations of happiness and anger.
LANGUAGE ITSELF DOES NOT APPLY TO PURE GNOSIS.
You've yet to substantiate this.
From this perspective, this epistemological foundation, it should be clear that "true" must be intersubjectively verifiable (and or logically necessary).
Even if we were to entertain your premises, they still wouldn't substantiate how "truth" must be inter-subjectively verifiable. After all, what is inter-subjectivity if not a composite of individual pure gnosis?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So what is this USOE on which you premise your not being convinced?Being CONVINCED is only about (USOE) Uniform-Standards-Of-Evidence (what qualifies as "true" and how do you know).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm still not convinced.I can't "choose" to be convinced.I'm either convinced or not convinced.You still don't believe in Santa Claus.
So, is being convinced to you primarily about emotional content?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But you have "chosen" to reject the premise on which Santa Clause is based. Every time you think about Santa Clause and reject his mere notion, you're making a choice. To deny that is to reject that you're a rational agent capable of processing and discriminating information. Your acceptance of certain notions, I wouldn't doubt, contains emotional content, but you can still choose how it manifests.I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no liable proof for the existence of human free-will, meaning that not once has there been a piece of evidence that completely proves the existence of human free-will.This is a classic appeal-to-ignorance. Also commonly presented as "you can't prove me wrong". It also attempts to unfairly shifts the burden-of-proof to your opponent. BOTH PRO and CON must be able to construct their OWN case.Most people consider their own, personal, private experience (GNOSIS) as conclusive "evidence" if not "proof".If someone claims to have seen gods or heard the voices of gods, you can't "prove them wrong".
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Give an example.HOWEvEer, your personal experience has proven to you, personally, that some ideas and perceptions are unreliable.
All thoughts EXIST (as GNOSIS), sure, BUT not all thoughts are TRUE.
How does subjective information make a perception "non-true" and intersubjective information make a perception "true"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you stop believing in air?Can you stop believing in water?Can you "choose" to believe in Santa Claus?Can you "choose" to believe in unicorns?Can you "choose" to believe in space-aliens?
Yes. But, you're still not explaining how belief excludes choice.
You're either CONVINCED or NOT.
Does this not make scrutiny and criticism futile?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You need more substantiation than that. You haven't necessarily created a sufficient explanation as to how belief excludes choice.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, when you say "true" you mean "only true for me"?
One can say only "true just for me."
You seem to be saying that in your view, GNOSIS = TRUTH.
Seem is not an argument; it would be more like my saying, QUALIA = TRUTH; where as you're stating "non-pure" qualia and quanta = truth.
Correct.HOWEveER, this does not mean that ALL "thoughts" are 100% TRUE.
Why not? Why does the veracity of one's own mind not extend to one's thoughts?
Some thoughts are "non-true", you know, like dreams and magic and make-believe and fairy-tales and religious-experiences.
But your premise is based on a concept that bears no capacity to be falsified. If we changed the definitions, would the argument still hold? If I use a particular definition, my argument will hold; if you use a particular definition, your argument will hold. But in this epistemological exploration, lexical semantics isn't sufficient. Otherwise, why are we still engaging each other in this discussion? I presume that we are both seeking to resolve that which we each believe constitutes the value of truth. You argue that the value in creating a distinction between real/true/fact and purely abstract/imaginary/make-believe is to prevent entertaining delusions and con-artistry. My position is that all of it is part of one's experience and thereby can be assigned a "truth-value" subject to its agent.
There are two things that betray your argument, and this information has been accumulated in my experience debating you:
1. You reject the notion of objectivity (or objective truth.) You offer that your metric for REAL/TRUE/FACT is subject to inter-subjectivity. This means necessarily that any metric you propose must be accepted by the inter-subjective collective. But we both know that the number of people has no relevance to the determination of truth, less it posits an ad populum fallacy. So then, what is scientific verification actually "verifying"? Intersubjectivity can only inform on the number of observers to a particular event; what does it do to escape the ad populum fallacy? In order to reconcile this, the resolution must be one independent of any and all observation. Or, it can be dependent on any one observation. (Because you have to rule out the relevance of the number.) Scientific verification does neither because observation and reproducible results are key. One would have to abandon logic.
2. You stated in the past that your position is necessarily one of materialism. (I believe you cited a video where quantum mechanics undermined materialist concepts.) So if REAL/TRUE/FACT isn't necessarily material, I then ask, why is the metric that the thousands of people who claim to have seen Big Foot usesubject to more criticism than that of scientific verification which is also contingent on number and observation?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That seems important.How do you see "truth"?
Truth is determined by the subject; the subject is the primary agent in one's own experience; experience is shaped by perception.
Thought itself exists as a logical necessity (NOUMENON).This is 100% undeniable truth.Now, you seem to be conflating mind-thought-truth-certainty.Just because the mind exists with 100% certainty, DOES NOT mean that every single thought (perception) is true.
Seem is not an argument; and yes, because the mind exist with 100% certainty, thoughts by extension exist with 100% certainty.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain where I can find this "Physical Interpretation"
Hypothetical time-travel =/= neuroscience.
Your contention against the posit that the mind is self-evident is that it can't be tested with "100%" veracity. When asked to explain this, you suggest that it's untestable and that sample sizes are insufficient to claim 100% veracity. How has neuroscience resolved this? That is, how has neuroscience escaped inductive arguments for those whom it hasn't tested?
Escape from delusion.
Define delusion.
Are you suggesting you don't see the value of distinguishing truth from un-truth?
I don't see "truth" as you do.
Yes. SIGMA is a measure of justifiable confidence.
But you're gauging your confidence to begin with. What, then, is "justifiable" confidence?
Created:
Perhaps, but it's no less inductive than stating that every person who can think has a brain.That is a reasonable, INDUCTIVE conclusion that is untestable (unfalsifiable) and NOT a REAL-TRUE-FACT.
And what does one gain from the practical application of "truth"?This (and any other) "truth" has no "value" UNLESS it has some PRACTICAL APPLICATION.Any "truth" that is unverified or unverifiable or unfalsifiable or undiscovered or secret is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE FICTION.It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not claiming 80% or 90% (in absolute terms) either.Science only makes claims based on samples. Out of 10,000 experiments, 50.32245% of (american penny) coin-flips land tails-up.This reliability is measured in SIGMA.Anything less than 2 SIGMA should be considered suspect (for scientific purposes).
You stated that "we couldn't conclude that it's 100% true." This suggests that you are aware of a 100% state of truth to which you are relating our current state. What is 100% true? A sample of every human on earth? If we can't make conclusions with 100% veracity then what exactly are we "verifying"? Our confidence?
By "quite a few" do you mean exactly 2?
Were there just two? I thought that there were at least three: Copenhagen interpretation, De Broigle-Bohm Theory, and the Physical Interpretation (Quantum Entanglement, Non-Locality, and Coherence.)
It is important because people often believe that "if someone makes a prediction that turns out to be true, they are more likely to make another prediction that turns out to be true". They tend to conflate that person with "a trusted source".And this is one of the tactics of a con-artist.If you don't know exactly HOW the person made a prediction that turned out to be accurate, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that their next guess is going to turn out to be accurate.For example, in ancient Greece when Democrates demonstrated an ability to predict the weather, people thought he was a god and started asking for all kinds of non-weather related predictions.
Why is what someone believes important to anyone other than themselves? Second, what standard makes a belief have "reason"? And finally, are you suggesting that scientific the verification ought to receive the esteem and idolatry that the ancient Greeks showed Democrates? Idolatry is okay as long as it has an acceptable reason?
Scientific verification determines REAL-TRUE-FACTS TAUTOLOGICALLY (by definition).
By one definition, yes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The "significance" is that some things are (intersubjectively) verifiable (REAL-TRUE-FACTS) and the rest is PURE QUALIA.
So the significance in the distinction is the distinction itself? What does the distinction produce?
It's not "impossible" to communicate PURE QUALIA, but the potential for error (miscommunication/misunderstanding) is extremely high.
Why does "pure qualia" escape the constraints you've placed on opinion--i.e. necessarily unverified private Gnosis? And by which metric are you gauging error? What is "extremely high" as opposed to "moderate"?
My primary use-case for logic is the ability to identify con-artists.
Well we're not talking about just your use-case for logic given the suggestion that Logic is intersubjective. So then what would make one a "con-artist"? An outlier? One who doesn't know logic? One who rejects logic? Or one who understands the "validity" of logic, but fallacy and contradiction to lie and manipulate, affecting the adherence of others to logic's "validity"?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Step ONE, Make your AXIOMS explicit.Step TWO, Check your logic for internal coherence.Step THREE, Check your logic for practical efficacy.That's how you know if your AXIOMS are REAL-TRUE-FACTS.
What is practical efficacy?
Shockingly, YES. [LINK]
It's empirical, but it certainly as of yet has not been "verified." Was it not subject to quite a few interpretations?
Only RETROACTIVELY. How could you determine if it was "true" if you lived 10,000 years ago?
But it doesn't change anything even when analyzed retrospectively. If I rely on my methods, logic, and "empirical verification" to determine the rules of "reality," then independent observation cannot determine truth. The consistency and reliability I posit the use logic of possesses is supposed to be transient and transcend chronological metrics. That is, no matter the time, the application of the my reliable standards would yield an identical result.
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that this "truth" has no value unless its observed?
At which point, the OPINION instantly evaporates and is transformed into a REAL-TRUE-FACT.
Doesn't change that it was an opinion. And if the truth coincides with the statement of opinion then the opinion was true, even in retrospect.
We rely on what is reliable. This much seems obvious. Trusting OPINION is foolish.
Why is that?
How do you know you like some flavors of ice-cream unless you've sampled 100% of all flavors of ice-cream?
This analogy does not suffice. I wouldn't claim to like 80% or 90% or even make claims of 100% of all ice cream flavors. "Some" is a nebulous measure with which to begin. I could give you any number and it would suffice.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time. Why can I not find it ?John 7:38 King James Version has Jesus saying:38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."" as the scripture has said"Where do the scripture actually say " out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."?What scripture says this? Is it from the Old Testament scripture or from earlier in the New Testament by another one of the gospel writers?
Perhaps your misunderstanding stems from a grammatical issue. You're assuming the clause, "as the scripture hath said," modifies and informs the following one, rather than the preceding one. Take this for example:
"If you listen to me, as Mother told you, you'll get all the ice cream you can eat."
Now if we examine this statement, the clause "like Mother told you" is modifying the preceding statement. Why? It's the only position in which the clause can be placed that informs the preceding statement. Let's rearrange the statement to get a clearer picture:
"As Mother told you, if you listen to me, you'll get all the ice cream you can eat."
This suggests that "Mother told you" to listen to me in order to get all the ice cream you can eat.
"If you listen to me, you'll get all the ice cream you can eat, as mother told you."
This suggests the very same thing.
The "as the scripture hath said" informs the preceding statement "He that believeth on me" not "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." It's not the Jesus "appears" to have made a false claim--not that you can render such a conclusion based on that which you've presented; it's an issue of syntax.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is great stuff.How do you know if something is true? What is your preferred definition of "truth"?
I don't have a preferred definition of truth. "Truth" is subjective. Definitions can create a common ground for what you call "intersubjectivity" but are unnecessary for the "intrasubjective." How do I know if something is true? If my experience is my primary standard, then I need only posit its truth (a priori or a posteriori.) For intersubjective experience, the "truth" must be posited and accepted by everyone which is in itself illogical.
There must be an original (logically necessary) truth in order to begin your infinite series of (IFF)/(THEN) statements.
Hold on to this statement.
How do you come to this conclusion? Logic is a system of AXIOMS that are tools for discovering REAL-TRUE-FACTS.
This is how I've come to that conclusion:
There must be an original (logically necessary) truth in order to begin your infinite series of (IFF)/(THEN) statements.
What is an axiom? It's an accepted self-evident truth. It precedes logic. Logic doesn't create the axiom. Logic as you stated uses it to discover "real-true-facts." But logic isn't the axiom or even the system of axioms. It's a system of reasoning which depends on axioms.
And, in reference to your excellent example, just like Schrodinger's wonderful-wonderful cat, the "photographs" are in a "quantum-super-state" up to and until the box is opened.
And is this quantum superstate empirically verifiable?
And this is a very important point, so I'm glad we're both on the same-page here.It is only true at the point of verification.And at that point, we can "retroactively" call it "true" colloquially, but it could never have been "true" BEFORE verification occurred.For example, if someone hypothesized that the Sun emits invisible rays of light, before there was any scientific evidence to support their claim, they would not be "correct" and their OPINION (prediction) would not and could not be considered TRUE.Up to and until the moment of verification, that person is not a "prophet" or a "liar". That person is indistinguishable from a lunatic (space-alien abductee).We should NEVER "take someones word-for-it".Only NOW can we say it is TRUE that the Sun emits invisible rays of light, and has, as far as we reasonably can tell, (retroactively) ALWAYS emitted invisible rays of light.
But it was always true. The only difference is that the information was disseminated through a standard you accept. But both the opinion and the verification could reach the same conclusion. You rely on verification because its reproducible while the opinion, not so much.
Plato's Parable of the MMORPG,Once upon a time there were a number of people who lived in complete darkness and the only thing they could see was their computer screens.What they saw on their screens was their reality.The only other people they knew were people in-game with magnificent costumes and weapons.Sure they had to fumble in the darkness in order to microwave a quick meal, or find their bed when they were exhausted, but those were merely incidental inconveniences.Only the game was real. Only the game was shared experience. Only in-game places and people and items were quantifiable, able to be observed and verified and shared with other players (quanta).Sometimes an individual would try to explain what kind of food they ate or describe their room (private/personal/unshared knowledge, gnosis) but since none of this information was directly relevant in-game and was fundamentally unverifiable, it was dismissed out-of-hand as unintelligible nonsense. In fact, even the language they had developed had evolved exclusively for in-game interactions, so there really weren't any proper words for "food" or "room" that were not specifically in-game references, and even more than that, since there was no taste, touch, or smell in-game, there were also no words to properly describe those sensations as well.
This argument essentially reduces to "the intrasubjective is not intersubjective; and the intersubjective is not intrasubjective." Are you suggesting that the significance in creating a distinction between the two are your personal qualifications (e.g. "unintelligible nonsense")?
It doesn't take an enormous amount of experimentation to discover that some experiences are more reliable than others.
How have you determined this?
The more reliable experiences are not 100% reliable (Hume), but they don't need to be.
What is "more"? If you don't know what 100% truth is, then how can you claim that something is not 100%?
They only need to be reliable enough to be useful.Efficacy.
Useful and efficacious toward what?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's an ontological choice. Durable, reliable, coherent ideas and or events and or things are things that can be labeled "REAL-TRUE-FACTS".
Fair enough.
It can be found at the intersection we call "intersubjectivity". It inhabits the ontological interpersonal space we share with "our fellow humans".For example, Plato's Parable of the MMORPG. [LINK]
What is the significance in creating a distinction between a subjective judgement and an intersubjective judgement?
How can you see a glass of water if you can't see ALL water?
It has to do with your use of proportions like 100%. If you're claiming that we cannot conclude it to be 100% true, that would mean that you have some conception of its being 100% true especially if you're going to relate our "current state." I'm essentially asking you how can you conceive a notion of 100% while simultaneously being unable to make a conclusion 100%?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
REAL-TRUE-FACTS must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary.REAL must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary.TRUE must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary.FACTS must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary.
Your suggestion makes it so that "truth" is subordinate to verification and logic, when it's not. For example, logic does not create truth. It merely communicates truths using a consistent metric (if this is true, and this is true, then this is true; this is true, so this true and vice versa.) It stands to reason that logic must conform to the truths, not the other way around. I cannot add a false statement to an otherwise true syllogism and argue that it's "true" because of logic. The same goes with verification. Using the example above, you cannot correctly characterize a statement as "inaccurate" if its truth has been determined (even post facto.)
An OPINION has no "truth-value". It is neither "true" nor "false" by itself.
That's technically true of any statement.
Before verification, it was pure speculation (which is not "true").
Incorrect. Before verification, the only thing that was different was the extent of our observation. Now if my statement were that "I know what's in that chest," that would be "not true." But if it's my opinion that there are old family photos in that chest, and we can empirically verify the chest's content where it substantiates my opinion, then that would be a case where my opinion/speculation and "truth" coincide.
Independent of verification, it is merely an OPINION.
I do not dispute that it's an opinion. My dispute is that this opinion is excluded from the truth, even when determined after the fact, that it was always true.
Created: