@georgioz's banner p

georgioz


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 05 07:15:35 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
						
							Verified Email
						
					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 493


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
georgioz


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 07:15:35 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 493


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Christian Soteriology
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It certainly sounds like you're saying you shouldn't judge God as good.




Only in the eye of solipsist. I do not "judge" God as good, he told me about his nature in his divine revelation. He is who defined this property, not me. That is the main point, he does not have to pass georgioz's stupid yardstick of what he judges as good or evil, he is the yardstick. Even if I declared him evil, it would be pointless in the same way as if I declared that 2+2=5. Again, that is the point of the discussion. I really find it amazing how some people are unable to escape their own solipsism, like with the other debater he just lives in his head in complete rebellion against everything including reason, worshipping his subjective judgement to an extent that he even cannot imagine anybody having a different worldview.




Exactly what here is fallacy of popularity? Are you claiming that because someone is more capable than you does mean they're right, and so when I say it doesn't mean that, that's fallacy of popularity? This seems strange.




You evoked "arguments" such as we've learned or we'd never accept etc. In middle-age mezoamerica we've learned that carving out hearts of slaves on an altar is amazing thing. Popularity of something does not make it good or true. That is the fallacy.




You can talk about what doesn't give moral strength or weakness without grounding morals. It is absurd to claim that God's power gives him moral strength. I may not be sure what does, but this doesn't.




That is because of your misconception of thinking of God as some "rich dude" inside the universe, your presupposition is exactly that you are equal to him. My paradigm is completely different, God is a unique entity that has ability to ground all these things: metaphysics, morality, epistemology etc. He gives the universe telos, he is responsible for stability of laws of nature. He is of course much more, but in this discussion he serves as an anchor. I even used the analogy with Gödel's god and what kind of grounding The God provides, if you are even willing to entertain such a thing:




To provide an example, imagine how god in Gödel's ontological proof serves as modal collapse that smooths away existence of unprovable truths. That is the point of my presupposition. In this analogy you are denying existence of Gödel's god, but you are also at the same denying existence of unprovable truths and claiming that you have access to modal collapse without any grounding.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Christian Soteriology
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I will, while you invoke them not knowing that tomorrow they can completely invert.




This is amazing, you still do not get the argument. You evidently do not understand the actual position, that goes about the situation paradigmatically. My paradigm allows for existence of stable laws of nature as created by god. Your paradigm is dependent on senses that have no epistemical grounding. You are projecting your worldview, you are absolutely incapable to think on meta level about the paradigms and logical rational conclusions of you positions. Again, it is completely the opposite.




When that debate fails, people go secular and shoot Conan dead.




And? Is it good or is it bad or is it just whatever? Or is it just deterministic universe doing its thing?




This is exactly what you're saying when you say "God". "My philosophical concepts are justified because I say so".




Haha, no you silly. My worldview provides actual justification, I even gave you example with  Gödel's god in what I mean.




I do not suffer either, because just like you, I'm perfectly capable of telling myself "actually my beliefs do have grounding"




Haha, this is incredible. You just assert incoherent gibberish on the level of 2+2=154 and at the same time you claim the mastery of mathematics, because you feel like it. This is basic rebelion against reason. Of course the paper does not burst when you write nonsensical stuff like this sentence is false. You seem to be unable to proceed to the level of analysis beyond that. Again, amazing stuff.


Anyway, have a good day sir and good luck with your nihilism and total relativism.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Christian Soteriology
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What a bunch of psychobabble garbage. Just this one sentence:




If I had to choose between the exact original soteriological schema (hypothetically) and a later innovation that is more fruitful, I would gladly pick the more fruitful one, simply because I only care about the effects.




What is fruitful, what effects do you care for? How did you came to posses such mystical knowledge of what is fruitful and what is rotten? This is classical "pragmatic" analysis of people who pretend that they are above the fray, the classical "neutral" position masking their own worldview.




In regards to the atonement as the fulfillment of the temple sacrifices, we can ask: what was the psychological effect on the part of the offerer? I’ve already written too much so I won’t go in depth, but: the scapegoat is believed to carry away the sins simply as placebo, almost as guided visualization, you feel that your sin has departed because the goat or the bird departs far away.




So what now, are you some kind of Nestorian or materialist and these are the "fruitful effects" that you seek? I don't even know what you are trying to say here, is this some sort of stream of though or what? I can as well read St. Ireneus Against Heresies from 180AD who offers a more meticulous critique of various cults, especially myriad of gnostic cults that engaged in various things that you describe here such as Valentinians or Marcionist. I can see where these cults come from, how they even relate to various movements right now. And I find it much more "fruitful" and having better "effect" compared to this reddit level of psychobabble, all it lacks is Jungian analysis of male and female archetype or some such nonsense as from Peterson.


Why the need to psychoanalyze this stuff and not take it at face level? We have rich writing of Church fathers, various debates between theologians as well as laymen over millennia. I find that much more interesting that this anachronistic bullshit.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Christian Soteriology
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


At the end of the day no amount of constructing philosophical concepts like God and declaring that it is that concept alone that provides meaning will actually change anything. I will continue to act as if my actions hold meaning despite no materialistic evidence to it (I never said I am a materialist).




So in short you are going to invent you own ad-hoc fairy tales divorced from senses and reason to pretend to walk through life. You are going to evoke concepts such as "good" or "truth" knowing it has no stable grounding and that tomorrow it can completely invert. Not only that, but that you were good and truthful all along, that there is no ultimate yardstick as everything is subjective and there is not standard. Exactly, this is the endpoint of this meaningless ungrounded philosophy.




You seem to believe that I need some objective philosophical justification. Untrue: I only need a subjective philosophical justification. That's all I have, and furthermore that's all you have, because your perception of so-called objective philosophical concepts is itself subjective. Who knows, maybe you're the one who lives in the Matrix and what you believe and remember about the Christian God's goodness changes on the daily.




Again, this is pure projection. It is all you have as you used your "reason" to construct this incoherent paradigm of subjectivism where you cannot ground metaphysics, epistemology or morals and where nothing has meaning outside of solipsistic subjectivity. I was making an internal critique of your worldview and you just assent: everything is subjective, you need no grounding and that is all you have. What you do not realize is that these are propositions.




I only need a subjective philosophical justification, perception of so-called objective philosophical concepts is itself subjective




You do not even realize that this is a universal statement that directly contradicts subjectivity, you are expressing a universal statement while at the same time denying existence of universal statements. You do this all the time, the term "subjective justification" cannot be subjective, it is like saying "married bachelor". Justification is not subjective, it is normative otherwise I can just say that Conan's response to question of what is good in life in form of "Crush your enemies, drive them before you and listen to lamentation of their women" is "justified" by his subjective perception of "philosophical concepts". So it then at least two of the criteria of Justified True Belief are met, and since truth is also subjective, Conan's moral prerogative counts as Justified True Belief as well in this insane system. It is "his Truth" in postmodern sense. Your subjective relativistic worldview completely vacates any possibility of truth, goodness and even possibility of any debate . *It's Conan's truth bro, he justifies it by his subjective experience of philosophical and moral concepts just like you, leave him be". Just to reiterate, this is internal critique of your position that has nothing to do with my position.


Or I can say that my philosophical concepts are "justified" because of "sbd sfnwefg esfdge". Justification must be normative, objective and invariant - none of which you have access to in your own paradigm. Which is exactly the point I am making and that you cannot understand. This sentence is an incoherent garbage. You claim access to metaphysical language without doing the legwork and you just try to avoid internal contradictions in your worldview.


Also your worldview and my worldview are nothing alike. I do not suffer from your problem, I can proudly declare "There is an objective philosophical justification for so-called objective philosophical concepts as they exist in a mind of The God, who is a special entity that can logically anchor all that". In the same way my analogy of Gödel's god anchors modal collapse. It is a coherent presupposition that fully accounts for my worldview and makes it distinct from your incoherent gibberish.