Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I apologize. My browser had divided pages just after your post and I missed it (happens too often).corvus_corax said:Hey RP?
Post 20 please?
Or perhaps I missed your reply. If so, let me know and I'll go back and look for it.
ReluctantProphet said:He faces constant heckling from the political crowd wanting to ensure that no one is seen as right on any issue. They shout, Oh youre just another egotist and think that youre superior to everyone.
ReluctantProphet said:READ the POSTS before you so arrogantly attempt to show yourself as being so authoritatively superior.
ReluctantProphet said:Now if the analogy of that short story isnt sufficient, I can bring it even closer to home with far more real and evident events concerning recent times and what you might call a world-view, but in doing so, the guilty will become exposed and very serious passion will be invoked to disrupt any further conversation because if there is one thing the deceiving vampires fear, it is you being able to see them by exposure to the clear light of day.
It seems pointless to discuss “How to know” something, so I thought I might offer for discussion “How I know anything.”
I claim that Jesus happens to be logically correct. In a sense, to me, it wouldn’t really matter if Jesus was ever a real person or not simply because even if He wasn’t, who ever wrote the stories hit on something significantly logically real anyway. The concepts turn out right either way.
But having said that, how do I know?
I say that there are only 4 concerns to knowing and they can be typified by the following 4 questions;
1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
2) How do you know that a ball is red?
3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
4) How do you know what absolute good is?
If you can logically answer these 4 questions, then you can reason logically and you can truly know things. From all I have seen on these threads, I suspect there isn’t one person on the site that can manage it even though it is doable.
The same concepts that allow you to answer these questions is what allows you to truly KNOW, not merely suspect with high probability nor merely take someone else’s word in faith.
I can agree with everything said here except for one important issue.In my mind, 'knowing' referrs to the verification through trial that my understanding of something is correct and trustworthy. In other words, when I say that I know that 2 + 2 = 4, I'm saying that my understanding of the rules behind the mathematical language, the quantities of 2 and 4 and the operation of addition have been tried and tested and that I have found them to be worthy enough to be deemed 'knowledge'.
I can apply this same principle to the questions of the red ball and the existence of things, though I'm not going to bother with them since the real question that interests me is #4 concerning the knowledge of absolute good. For a christian, the knowledge of absolute good is a spiritual occurrence. It happens within the heart as one inwardly learns to choose to love purity, goodness and righteousness over the carnal desires. This is called 'turning to the Lord' - the spirit of God which was inside of and displayed by Jesus Christ through his actions and words. The affect this has on the way one behaves and lives can be roughly understood with this metaphor - If we think about ones body and life as a delicate and complicated musical instrument, say a grand piano, spirit would be behind the way it is played. This is why Christians are so big on seeing the evidence of salvation. However, this process of turning one's heart to the Lord is not without cost. The very fact that a heart has turned away is because of transgression, which requires restitution. Fortunately, though, this cost was paid in Jesus' death on the cross. In the context of your question, my understanding of this topic has been tried and tested just as my understanding of 2 + 2, though much more complex, and I have found it to be worthy to be deemed 'knowledge'.
It seems pointless to discuss How to know something, so I thought I might offer for discussion How I know anything.
I claim that Jesus happens to be logically correct. In a sense, to me, it wouldnt really matter if Jesus was ever a real person or not simply because even if He wasnt, who ever wrote the stories hit on something significantly logically real anyway. The concepts turn out right either way.
But having said that, how do I know?
I say that there are only 4 concerns to knowing and they can be typified by the following 4 questions;
1) How do you know that 2+2=4?
2) How do you know that a ball is red?
3) How do you know that anything exists at all?
4) How do you know what absolute good is?
If you can logically answer these 4 questions, then you can reason logically and you can truly know things. From all I have seen on these threads, I suspect there isnt one person on the site that can manage it even though it is doable.
The same concepts that allow you to answer these questions is what allows you to truly KNOW, not merely suspect with high probability nor merely take someone elses word in faith.
I agree with 1 and 2 but 3 could use a little brushing up.1.) By definition.
2.) By observation plus definition. However, I guess this depends on your definition of 'know'.
3.) By the fact that observations, whether true ones or false ones, exist.
4.) The concept is unintelligible to me, so I do not know that.
I agree with 1 and 2 but 3 could use a little brushing up.
As to (4), the one giving people the most trouble, you know that there is something being called good whether accurately or not, thus the word has a concept associated with it.
Unlike most words these days, that one seems to be holding up pretty well to its common concept. The larger concern in society of course is that word "absolute" which means, of course, the ultimate extreme of the pure concept.
It shouldn't be too hard to put those together.
Is it too difficult to see that the word "good" is being used to signify "something that helps a goal"?I understand that the word has a concept associated with it. I find this concept unintelligible, like 'square circle' or 'married bachelor'. I cannot hold in my mind what such a thing might actually be.
Is it too difficult to see that the word "good" is being used to signify "something that helps a goal"?
Obviously at most levels that "something" would be relative to the goal in mind or felt to be progress toward a consciously unidentified goal to achieve.
Of course. And that is why there cannot be an absolute involved here.
The ultimate extreme of the help to a goal would be something that could not possibly help that goal any more. It would indicate the "perfect" help or support.RP said:The larger concern in society of course is that word "absolute" which means, of course, the ultimate extreme of the pure concept.
The ultimate extreme of the help to a goal would be something that could not possibly help that goal any more. It would indicate the "perfect" help or support.
That would mean the goal would have the maximum assistance possible to its achievement.
Now, if you only have a short term goal in mind, like going to the store, then whatever absolutely ensured you getting there would be the absolute good for that particular goal.
So that is one form of the "absolute good".
But then everyone really has far more than one goal in their lives. This would mean that the "absolute good" would be whatever ensured that EVERY goal they had was achieved. This is typically impossible simply because often one goal prevents another.
So that would be a second type of "absolute good" (usually impossible).
But also everyone has a highest priority goal even if they don't recognize it. They might think that they have 2 or more equally high priority goals in their life. But what this really means is that their true high priority is the goal of ensuring all of the equally high priorities. It still settles to one true highest priority. But it has to be noted that most people have priorities that they don't recognize consciously. Thus the "absolute good" would be whatever ensured to the maximum possible degree that their highest priority (recognized or not) got accomplished.
This would be the third type of "absolute good".
Now the ensuing questions and discussion if all of that was seen and agreed to, would involve what in reality actually meets the criteria of the "absolute good" as it relates to which ever goal type we were talking about. So far, we have merely given it conception or definition.
How can something be "relative" if it achieves ALL goals?Okay. But that is certainly not what most people mean when they talk about an absolute good.
Agreed - but again that it not what people usually mean when they talk about an absolute good.
Agreed. And again, this does not match what people talk about when they discuss 'absolute good'. When they are discussing 'absolute good' they use it in contrast to 'relative good'. The 'relative' in 'relative good' is referring to the fact that the good is always relative to a particular goal - nothing is absolutely good because good is always relative to the goal.
If that is the definition of absolute good that you are using, I have no problem with it. Again, though, it is not the way the phrase is commonly used. The way the phrase is commonly used - to dismiss the idea that the merit of an action depends on the goal behind the action - is incoherent.
How can something be "relative" if it achieves ALL goals?
And if it achieves the goals as to their priority in the absolute most possible manner, then again, how is that not absolute in that the goals were still ALL addressed as to their priority?
Before I respond, can you point out the conceptual difference between what I have stated and what you are asking about?As you have pointed out, no act can achieve contradictory goals.
Again, no act can acheive contradictory goals. Further, I am unclear what you mean by 'absolute most possible manner'. Do you mean fastest? Most cost-effective in monetary terms? Most cost-effective in terms of lives lost? Most energy efficient? Least impact on the environment?
As an example, if my goal is to kill all Jews, and your goal is to save as many as possible, what actions are 'good' in this scenario? Can we determine that my actions are good and yours are not? Or can we find that, provided our individual actions matched our individual goals, we both acted in a morally good fashion?
Before I respond, can you point out the conceptual difference between what I have stated and what you are asking about?
I can agree with everything said here except for one important issue.
The beginning of knowledge rather than faith or believing is not about seeing the evidence or experience, but rather simply declaring concepts.
Typically today, as happens throughout history, people take their concepts for granted and forget that a concept has nothing to do with reality other than as a mental tool to be used later. All of mathematics is simply declared or defined. It has no need to be compared to reality to be verified. The value of mathematics must be verified by seeing that it actually does help measure something more accurately than you might have done otherwise.
Definitions and declarations clear the path to eventual understanding for the conscious mind, without which all is futile.
The spiritual light found through faithful following is certainly needed and a good place to start if no conscious understanding can be accomplished before hand.
The problem comes in when so many remain with only a spiritual heart felt understanding, but never rise to the full conscious understanding. Until the spirit and the conscious mind can come into harmony, there will always be weakness in faith. that weakness will always make any demostration to others of greatness less than it could have been and the reputation of christianity suffers.
Jesus had no intention for people to keep ONLY faith and never rise into full understanding.
The path to full understanding (without assumption or room for doubt) is open to those who will merely seek it (faithfully).
Humility, even to all you thought to be important, is the governer and final measure of the potential for success.
The path is open for those who are humble enough to merely listen and seek absolute truth and thus certain "knowledge". If you have to be teased and lured into humility, then you are in trouble. The nearer future is not that of luring into humility but crushing into it.
I would agree with ALL of this 100%. (well, ok 99.9%)I think I see where you're going with this idea of declarations being requisite to knowledge. This is a very fuzzy area where I'm afraid that our loose semantics can easily confuse the issue. It sounds like you're saying that concepts first exist purely in thought before they can ever be verified and lead to understanding and knowledge am I right?
I'm simply arguing that these concepts that exist as pure thought are a form of understanding, whether correct or incorrect since one can posses a myriad of false and true, complex and simple understandings. Knowledge would then be this same understanding after the fact has been established that its level of trustworthiness is somewhere around the 'factual' or 'truth' level.
Sure math simply exists within the mind and has nothing to do with reality... In highschool I was involuntarily forced to take trigonometry where the 'knowledge' of my superiors was passed down to me. However, as of this moment I doubt that I could successfully pass on to you even 2% of what I learned there simply because I found no practical use for these concepts in my normal life. It has all passed away over time and can no longer be considered 'knowledge'. Therefore, in my mind, the knowledge I have are those conceptual understandings that have survived the fires of real life.
I respectfully submit that you (and most) have misunderstood what Paul was talking about. And I also have to state that the amount understandable is a great deal more than what has been understood. The limits of what is understandable have not even been scratched in the area.I'd agree with you that Jesus wanted us to seek wisdom, however I don't believe that it is possible for anyone to reach an absolutely full understanding of spiritual things while on this earth because of the writing of Paul (on the differences between this life and the next): "11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."
I was referring to the need to be extremely humble far more than normal so as to accomplish a clear mind. And not humble to ME, but humble to all around you, Reality itself.Have I been arrogant in some way? If I have then I apologize.
I respectfully submit that you (and most) have misunderstood what Paul was talking about. And I also have to state that the amount understandable is a great deal more than what has been understood. The limits of what is understandable have not even been scratched in the area.
I was referring to the need to be extremely humble far more than normal so as to accomplish a clear mind. And not humble to ME, but humble to all around you, Reality itself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?