The Varieties of Truth

[Zarathustra]

I think it's very necessary. Some people will just persist or try to take advantage of others if you don't. They will dangle their truth over people's heads, and in the worst cases, bully and control them with it. I'd rather just be proactive about setting certain boundaries, rather than wait for that to happen. Whoever wants to proclaim they know better than others without any evidence will have to do it through power alone. And they're free to try it.

I never figured you for a totalitarian...

 

[KDude]

I never figured you for a totalitarian...

Lol. I'm not into controlling people's thoughts. They can think what they want. I just mean at a certain point, they need to shut up. When their thoughts pour out into the social/political sphere, I expect more truth than "just because". I'm more about challenging anyone like this than controlling. People should recognize that there are unknowns (and ideally, continue investigating what is or isn't unknown.. some will come up with an answer this way). Enabling bullshit isn't helping anything. If that's totalitarian, so be it.

 

[Spurgeon]

KDude's not trying to limit anyone else.

His being quick to call everything bullshit is a self-imposed limitation.

 

[Zarathustra]

Lol. I'm not into controlling people's thoughts. They can think what they want. I just mean at a certain point, they need to shut up. When their thoughts pour out into the social/political sphere, I expect more truth than "just because". I'm more about challenging anyone like this than controlling. People should recognize that there are unknowns (and ideally, continue investigating what is or isn't unknown.. some will come up with an answer this way). Enabling bullshit isn't helping anything. If that's totalitarian, so be it.

I prefer free speech.

If you want to be the idiot telling everyone Jesus is coming back and they're all gunna burn in hell: feel free.

I will likewise, if I so choose, exercise my freedom to scoff at, mock, and/or ridicule you.

Frankly, though, the part that made me question your judgment is that these kind of people, the people who deserve to be scoffed at, mocked, and ridiculed: they're generally not the ones who are willing to also say, "Oh, yeah, but this is just my faith. I could totally be wrong!"

I just found it rather off-putting that even to people who are willing to say such a thing, you still want them to shut the hell up.

KDude's not trying to limit anyone else.

How is he not, if he says they should all shut up?

His being quick to call everything bullshit is a self-imposed limitation.

I dunno... get him talking about Kierkegaard and you might see a different side...

 

[KDude]

Keirkegaard's cool to me because he fully admits to resting on faith. He's the kind of faith centered person I respect. I like his honesty about it. He's fully aware how frightening that life/the universe/and the unknown can be, but presents faith as a noble act in the face of that.

 

[Zarathustra]

That's why I was confused.

Isn't Kierkegaard's positioned essentially the same as the people who would say, "Oh, yeah, but this is just my faith. I could totally be wrong!"?

 

[Spurgeon]

How is he not, if he says they should all shut up?

Wait--you were serious about that? I thought you were just giving him a hard time.

I don't see any indication that he wants to control anyone. I think he's saying that these people ought to take it upon themselves to shut up.

Isn't Kierkegaard's positioned essentially the same as the people who would say, "Oh, yeah, but this is just my faith. I could totally be wrong!"?

Yes. And that's not faith at all. That's doubt.

Kierkegaard was an existentialist, not a Christian. But that's a whole other topic.

 

[KDude]

That's why I was confused.

Isn't Kierkegaard's positioned essentially the same as the people who would say, "Oh, yeah, but this is just my faith. I could totally be wrong!"?

Pretty much. He's more like the champion of the "leap of faith". His position was that faith was inextricably tied with doubt. Anything else was just simply being credulous. That a person of true faith would first recognize that there was a cliff. Then faith willingly jumps off the cliff. Faith is not ignoring the cliff.

The Apostle Paul in the bible, more or less, infers the same thing. 1 Corinthians indicates how he at least recognizes how his own beliefs can look, objectively speaking.

"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Cor 1:21-24]

He recognized the two other points of view, but didn't try to appease them or make his religion look legitimate in that light. Those who demand "signs" (i.e. evidence) and those who look for "wisdom" (a vague term, but in the context.. I would say anything that falls under a intellectually satisfying systematic explanation of the universe). He totally admits that what he preaches is foolishness. And does it anyways.

 

[Spurgeon]

Pretty much. He's more like the champion of the "leap of faith". His position was that faith was inextricably tied with doubt. Anything else was just simply being credulous. That a person of true faith would first recognize that there was a cliff. Then faith willingly jumps off the cliff. Faith is not ignoring the cliff.

The Apostle Paul in the bible, more or less, infers the same thing. 1 Corinthians indicates how he at least recognizes how his own beliefs can look, objectively speaking.

"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Cor 1:21-24]

He recognized the two other points of view, but didn't try to appease them or make his religion look legitimate in that light. Those who demand "signs" (i.e. evidence) and those who look for "wisdom" (a vague term, but in the context.. I would say anything that falls under intellectually satisfying systematic explanation of the universe). He totally admits that what he preaches is foolishness. And does it anyways.

You can NOT be serious.

This is the worst mis-interpretation of Scripture I have ever seen in my life.

On the contrary, Paul gave up everything for the sake of the Gospel, because he knew for certain that what he was preaching was the absolute Truth.

 

[KDude]

Paul gave up everything for the sake of the Gospel, because he knew for certain that what he was preaching was the absolute Truth.

He didn't know for certain, else he wouldn't have been a champion of "faith". He had faith that it was the absolute truth. He didn't know it was the absolute truth. Big difference. He even butted heads with other Christians on how faith was the foundation for everything they stood for.

I'm just simply reading. If you want to exagerrate your disagreement on how my interpretation is the "worst" of all, then feel free. If getting dramatic is your way of winning, then you already lose any credibility. I'm sure that I can provide a thousand "worse" interpretations than that. Something involving goat testicles perhaps.. that might be worse. Sky's the limit.

 

[Spurgeon]

He didn't know for certain, else he wouldn't have been a champion of "faith". He had faith that it was the absolute truth. He didn't know it was the absolute truth. Big difference. He even butted heads with other Christians on how faith was the foundation for everything they stood for.

I'm just simply reading. If you want to exagerrate your disagreement on how my interpretation is the "worst" of all, then feel free. If getting dramatic is your way of winning, then you already lose any credibility. I'm sure that I can provide a thousand "worse" interpretations than that. Something involving goat testicles perhaps.. that might be worse. Sky's the limit.

Ok, fair enough. It was a bit of an exaggeration.

But you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

There are so many problems with your interpretation, I honestly don't know where to begin.

 

[KDude]

Ok, fair enough. It was a bit of an exaggeration.

But you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

There are so many problems with your interpretation, I honestly don't know where to begin.

Well, you should begin.

Back to Keirkegaard.. His biblical focus is not Paul. It's Abraham. Time and again, Abraham was called the "father of faith" and became a "friend of God" because of that faith. Abraham, as the story goes, was told to sacrifice his own son. Abraham clearly showed his shock and dismay about it. It wasn't something he wanted to do. Whatever his understanding of the world, it included not killing his own son. But he prepared for it anyways.

The thing is though, many people (consciously or unconsciously) see this act as one of obedience. They champion obedience. But Abraham was not called the "father of obedience". He went up that mountain with Isaac thinking that God would still provide a lamb for him. That's a very subtle difference. Many people in the ancient world sacrificed their children out of obedience. To Keirkegaard, what makes Abraham different is that believed for no reason or sign that he would still get his son back. This is what faith is.

 

[Tiltyred]

Pretty much. He's more like the champion of the "leap of faith". His position was that faith was inextricably tied with doubt. Anything else was just simply being credulous. That a person of true faith would first recognize that there was a cliff. Then faith willingly jumps off the cliff. Faith is not ignoring the cliff.

The Apostle Paul in the bible, more or less, infers the same thing. 1 Corinthians indicates how he at least recognizes how his own beliefs can look, objectively speaking.

"For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Cor 1:21-24]

He recognized the two other points of view, but didn't try to appease them or make his religion look legitimate in that light. Those who demand "signs" (i.e. evidence) and those who look for "wisdom" (a vague term, but in the context.. I would say anything that falls under a intellectually satisfying systematic explanation of the universe). He totally admits that what he preaches is foolishness. And does it anyways.

I like this very much. It's in the nature of a koan.

 

[Zarathustra]

Wait--you were serious about that?

I was partially serious.

I thought you were just giving him a hard time.

I was partially giving him a hard time.

I don't see any indication that he wants to control anyone.

Perhaps your standards for what it means to want to control someone are lower than mine.

To say "they should all shut the hell up", to me, sounds like a desire to control somebody.

I think he's saying that these people ought to take it upon themselves to shut up.

Yes, I understood as much; I still found it a bit off-putting.

Hence, the ball-busting.

Yes. And that's not faith at all. That's doubt.

I disagree.

It's simply the recognition of the conditions upon which faith exists.

That doesn't mean it's not faith.

Frankly, it's more impressive to be conscious of these conditions, and to still keep the faith, then to be unconscious of them and do so.

Kierkegaard was an existentialist, not a Christian.

I was not aware that the two are mutually exclusive.

I suppose neither are/were all the other existentialists who have/had religious faith.

 

[Spurgeon]

Well, you should begin.

Back to Keirkegaard.. His biblical focus is not Paul. It's Abraham. Time and again, Abraham was called the "father of faith" and became a "friend of God" because of that faith. Abraham, as the story goes, was told to sacrifice his own son. Abraham clearly showed his shock and dismay about it. It wasn't something he wanted to do. Whatever his understanding of the world, it included not killing his own son. But he prepared for it anyways.

The thing is though, many people (consciously or unconsciously) see this act as one of obedience. They champion obedience. But Abraham was not called the "father of obedience". He went up that mountain with Isaac thinking that God would still provide a lamb for him. That's a very subtle difference. Many people in the ancient world sacrificed their children out of obedience. To Keirkegaard, what makes Abraham different is that believed for no reason or sign that he would still get his son back. This is what faith is.

I totally agree with this. But I don't see your point.

 

[Spurgeon]

I disagree.

It's simply the recognition of the conditions upon which faith exists.

That doesn't mean it's not faith.

Frankly, it's more impressive to be highly aware and accepting of these conditions, and to still keep the faith, then to be less aware and/or unaccepting of them and do so.

Well, then you are in agreement with Kdude and Kierkegaard.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I disagree.

According to Wikipedia:

The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism. He maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving her or his own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.

A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called his or her "essence" instead of there being a predetermined essence that defines what it is to be a human.

Do I really have to point out how this contradicts a Biblical worldview?

 

[Zarathustra]

I disagree.

According to Wikipedia:

Do I really have to point out how this contradicts a Biblical worldview?

You can do as you will, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Citing a sentence from wikipedia as the authority on all things existentialism is like asking a dog about the meaning of life.

I've read that entry before, and, each time that I have, I have taken issue with that particular sentence.

There are many approaches subsumed under the existentialist banner -- and many reject the label.

The lines of thought can always be weaved more subtly; your construction will inevitably fail.

I will note, however, that you seemed to conveniently leave out my bit about religious existentialism.

 

[KDude]

Do I really have to point out how this contradicts a Biblical worldview?

Yeah, you do. Why should we do that for you?

Keirkegaard was a Christian by any typical, Protestant, credal standard of the label. He believed Jesus was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, etc.. What more do you want from the guy? To reflect every single facet of the world contained in the Bible, as you see it? Is that what Christianity is? Since when? And why?

And am I going to hell because I like Apple Pie then? Because unfortunately, Jesus didn't give me any rules about it. And it's not something mentioned in Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. Jedediah begat Zephariah, instead of Apple Pie. And now I'm an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Amen.

Besides, "Existentialism" wasn't even a word in Keirkegaard's vocabulary. He's certainly one of the first people to think and/or write along those lines, but the definition and label came much later, and incorporated all kinds of philosophers from different worldviews. Dostoevsky is also considered an existentialist, and he was an Orthodox Christian. And he's celebrated by millions, if not billions, of other Christians. Sartre and Nietzsche, atheists.

 

[Spurgeon]

You can do as you will, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Citing a sentence from wikipedia as the authority on all things existentialism is like asking a dog about the meaning of life.

I've read that entry before, and, each time that I have, I have taken issue with that particular sentence.

I will note, however, that you seemed to conveniently leave out my bit about religious existentialism.

It doesn't matter where I quoted it from. That, in a nutshell, is what Existentialism is.

And what about religious existentialism?

I don't deny that the philosophy exists. Some people claim to be religious existentialists. That's a fact.

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense.

 

[Spurgeon]

Yeah, you do. Why should we do that for you?

Keirkegaard was a Christian by any typical, Protestant, credal standard of the label. He believed Jesus was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, etc.. What more do you want from the guy? To reflect every single facet of the world contained in the Bible, as you see it? Is that what Christianity is? Since when? And why?

And am I going to hell because I like Apple Pie then? Because unfortunately, Jesus didn't give me any rules about it. And it's not something mentioned in Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. Jedediah begat Zephariah, instead of Apple Pie. And now I'm an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Amen.

Besides, "Existentialism" wasn't even a word in Keirkegaard's vocabulary. He's certainly one of the first people to think and/or write along those lines, but the definition and label came much later, and incorporated all kinds of philosophers from different worldviews. Dostoevsky is also considered an existentialist, and he was an Orthodox Christian. And he's celebrated by millions, if not billions, of other Christians. Sartre and Nietzsche, atheists.

That is all completely irrelevant.