| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2013 11:16:45 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I once tried to bring up to my attorney in a deposition that I had issues with saying "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." I mean, you are perjuring yourself before you even give testimony. He gave me the slow stare and encouraged me to just "say the f***ing words". Ah how we must sacrifice truth in our quest for justice. |
reminds me of this:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IRxpjEZveQ |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 06:31:00 PM · #2 |
That's funny, Brennan. Oh man, you have me chuckling. Maybe I should try that the next time someone isn't positive they want to "pray that prayer".
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 06:10:44 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
it's strikingly unlikely that we humans just happen to have the perceptive tools required to perceive "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." I mean, that's silly. |
I once tried to bring up to my attorney in a deposition that I had issues with saying "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." I mean, you are perjuring yourself before you even give testimony. He gave me the slow stare and encouraged me to just "say the f***ing words". Ah how we must sacrifice truth in our quest for justice.
Message edited by author 2013-05-02 19:05:58. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 05:33:34 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It sorta sounds like solipsism which is a scary boogeyman with the one weakness that if you close your eyes and grit your teeth, *poof*, it disappears. |
Well, nevertheless... Philosophers since the time of Plato have worked countless variations on the theme -- perception is not reality, the map is not the territory, you know the drill. And it's basically indisputable. I mean, it's PROVABLE that what we call perception is a flawed thing. Not always, of course. Nobody's saying that every perception, or even most perceptions, is/are "false", but...
To whatever extent there actually EXISTS an objective "reality" that is the universe and the components that constitute it, it's strikingly unlikely that we humans just happen to have the perceptive tools required to perceive "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." I mean, that's silly. Dogs and bats hear things we don't hear. There are wavelengths of light we cannot perceive. And these are just the levels of reality we can't directly perceive but nevertheless KNOW exist. So it boggles my mind when people insist that we've reached the limits of all this, that whatever's gone unproven to this point cannot exist.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 05:12:00 PM · #5 |
| It sorta sounds like solipsism which is a scary boogeyman with the one weakness that if you close your eyes and grit your teeth, *poof*, it disappears. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 05:08:44 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also enjoy how analogies become their own conversation and we wind up discussing maps and plate tectonics and the desert when, all along, it was an allegory for belief. |
Yeah, but THEY are extending the allegory. In particular, Brennan's delightful segue over to Korzybski (who managed to raise a few interesting points in his lifetime) is rather apropos to BOTH sides of the debate, which is fairly sobering when you think about it :-) |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 04:32:25 PM · #7 |
| I also enjoy how analogies become their own conversation and we wind up discussing maps and plate tectonics and the desert when, all along, it was an allegory for belief. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 04:01:59 PM · #8 |
The lovely thing about these discussions is the little eddies that circle back on themselves.
"The map is not the territory" Alfred Korzybski.
Korzybski thought that people do not have access to direct knowledge of reality; rather they have access to perceptions and to a set of beliefs which human society has confused with direct knowledge of reality. Not exactly new territory since I see it as going back to Plato's cave.
We can only access the ideas we are capable of perceiving, yet those perceptions can not be assumed to be reality. When we put our faith in the perceptions of others, the probability of error in interpretation of that perceived reality is doubled. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 03:42:13 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Once you get the map right Brennan, why change it? ;) |
I take it you've never heard of plate tectonics then? Or erosion, earthquakes, volcanoes ... or other "acts of God" as the insurance companies like to put it .. |
You know, I think I see a solution, Sneezy just needs to come live/adventure in the desert for a few years. I assure you, here, you will either learn to ignore the map and defer to reality, or you will suffer serious consequences nearly immediately. :)
;) |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 03:07:40 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Once you get the map right Brennan, why change it? ;) |
I take it you've never heard of plate tectonics then? Or erosion, earthquakes, volcanoes ... or other "acts of God" as the insurance companies like to put it .. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 02:32:45 PM · #11 |
I meant it doesn't matter from the reciprocity sense. I am acting out of good intentions with the information presented to me. I would expect the exact same behavior of someone else. Hence reciprocity is maintained and the answer to Jeb's original question remains "no".
Once you get the map right Brennan, why change it? ;) |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 02:15:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even then, if I fully believe the road is washed out ahead, shouldn't I tell someone else about it? |
If you are basing the information you are giving out on a two thousand year old map, you might be more prone to error than you think.:) |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 02:11:02 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if I'm wrong then it all doesn't really matter, does it?
Even then, if I fully believe the road is washed out ahead, shouldn't I tell someone else about it? I would expect the same of others. If they did so and were incorrect, I wouldn't fault their intentions, just their information. |
Sure it matters.
First, this is the zero cost fallacy. Just by tithing, and dedicating your time(the most precious resource any of us have), you bear significant burden.
Secondly, for the rest of us, it does matter because as was noted by Jeb above, the carrot/stick approach tends to really bother some of us. Me especially.
Oh, and I do think I'm just trying to explain to you why the road is washed out even though it might look like a great route, yet somehow you do seem to manage to fault my intentions, contrary to your assertion above. :)
Message edited by author 2013-05-02 14:13:44. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 01:25:11 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, if I'm wrong then it all doesn't really matter, does it? |
There can be consequences for those acting on your incorrect information -- they might have to take a 100-mile detour, run out of gas, be late for a wedding ... or perhaps you're just re-directing them to the toll road where your cousin has the franchise ... ;-)
Yes, I meant "fundamental" more in the sense of "basic" than "literal" ... it's my understanding that Jesus felt that "his people" has "slipped" in the practice of their religion (Judaism, right?) and were adopting too many of the habits and practices of the idolatrous occupying forces ... |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 01:13:29 PM · #15 |
Well, if I'm wrong then it all doesn't really matter, does it?
Even then, if I fully believe the road is washed out ahead, shouldn't I tell someone else about it? I would expect the same of others. If they did so and were incorrect, I wouldn't fault their intentions, just their information. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:20:28 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Ran into a question in a Christianity forum thread researching the ethic of reciprocity, aka Golden Rule.
"Is it a violation of the Golden Rule for Christians to adopt a belief system that judges half the world to hell?"
Interesting question, eh? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No. Sorta boring. The answer is "no" and it seems like one has very little to do with the other... |
Okay.......but going back to the old "What if you're wrong?" question, then this question certainly has some substance, not to mention that an awful lot of us have a problem with the whole "Accept and believe, or else." kind of thinking.
I know I'm a special kind of hard-headed, but I don't like to be threatened, or have a carrot dangled in front of me to influence my character & behaviors.
The ethic of reciprocity works just peachy for me.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:15:19 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now, if Paul used fundamental to mean "more basic" then my point above is less applicable. |
Seemed that way to me.......8~)
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:15:06 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Ran into a question in a Christianity forum thread researching the ethic of reciprocity, aka Golden Rule.
"Is it a violation of the Golden Rule for Christians to adopt a belief system that judges half the world to hell?"
Interesting question, eh? |
No. Sorta boring. The answer is "no" and it seems like one has very little to do with the other... |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:12:12 PM · #19 |
I don't think I was disagreeing with any of that Jeb.
I'll be a little more clear about "fundamental". When using that term in the context of religion we might quickly jump to "fundamentalism" which tends to be partly defined as having a "literal interpretation of scripture" (fudamentalism, as a movement in the Christian world, was in reaction to modernism which preached a very figurative interpretation of scriptures.) Anyway, my point is that, in this sense, Jesus was hardly fundamental. His Sermon on the Mount had an overriding theme that motivations were as important or even more important than following the law. That we can't just take the literal interpretation of "do not kill" we must also worry about hating others as well (as an example).
Now, if Paul used fundamental to mean "more basic" then my point above is less applicable. This is why I asked for clarification.
Message edited by author 2013-05-02 12:15:47. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:10:27 PM · #20 |
Ran into a question in a Christianity forum thread researching the ethic of reciprocity, aka Golden Rule.
"Is it a violation of the Golden Rule for Christians to adopt a belief system that judges half the world to hell?"
Interesting question, eh?
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:00:15 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Can we also remember that Jesus did not invent a new religion or even ideas about ways to live, but was rather a preacher of a return to a more fundamental practice of a long-established religion and its rules and tenets.... |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just going to come back to this because I think it's interesting. Don't you think Jesus viewed himself as a "game changer"? Ranging from his Sermon on the Mount where he keeps saying, "you have heard it is said...but I say..." to his claims of divinity expressed throughout the gospels. You will also have to define your use of "fundamental" because these days that tends to mean a "more literal" interpretation which is very different than what he preached (ie. motivations being more important than actions). I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
Paul's use of fundamental in the context of his statement sure seems perfectly clear, and his eloquently put premise that Christians don't have the copyright on decent thoughts and actions rings true.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:35:59 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
So what?
Could you be a bit more explicit and clearly delineate what it is that you don't agree with... and while you are at it define what you think "fundamental" means.
Once informed of your views and interpretation, we could then decide whether we agree with them or not. :O)
Ray |
Ray, you need to read more carefully. I did both those things in my post.
Paul, I sure do. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 07:47:43 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Can we also remember that Jesus did not invent a new religion or even ideas about ways to live, but was rather a preacher of a return to a more fundamental practice of a long-established religion and its rules and tenets.... |
I'm just going to come back to this because I think it's interesting. Don't you think Jesus viewed himself as a "game changer"? Ranging from his Sermon on the Mount where he keeps saying, "you have heard it is said...but I say..." to his claims of divinity expressed throughout the gospels. You will also have to define your use of "fundamental" because these days that tends to mean a "more literal" interpretation which is very different than what he preached (ie. motivations being more important than actions). I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
When you say 'gospels' - I presume you are referring to the subset that the church has declared to be 'true' - not the wider set that tell a different story? |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 07:32:31 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
So what?
Could you be a bit more explicit and clearly delineate what it is that you don't agree with... and while you are at it define what you think "fundamental" means.
Once informed of your views and interpretation, we could then decide whether we agree with them or not. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/01/2013 07:07:49 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Can we also remember that Jesus did not invent a new religion or even ideas about ways to live, but was rather a preacher of a return to a more fundamental practice of a long-established religion and its rules and tenets.... |
I'm just going to come back to this because I think it's interesting. Don't you think Jesus viewed himself as a "game changer"? Ranging from his Sermon on the Mount where he keeps saying, "you have heard it is said...but I say..." to his claims of divinity expressed throughout the gospels. You will also have to define your use of "fundamental" because these days that tends to mean a "more literal" interpretation which is very different than what he preached (ie. motivations being more important than actions). I think overall your statement above is quite incorrect. |
|
