Tizo🗡️

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

In the unlikely event that "heaven" exists, mine would be sitting under the "useless tree" listening to Plato, Aristotle, Chuang Tzu, Confucius, Mencius, Xunzi... have a discussion.

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@Based_BG That just Paul's hearsay in his pre-gospel propaganda letters 20 yrs after the crucification

Watching the C Kirk aftermath, I figure if we lived in a time of no video, low literacy, no print press, etc his story would also have been transformed into a similar messianic martyrdom

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@PunchYourFaith @TheExBeliever Is faith in a bad drug (Abrahamism) more reliable than the outcomes that would derive from continuously seeking better drugs, exercise, and living well (Ethics)?

It's merely a hypothetical question, because you all are already addicted

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant I'm not against obedience. Though it can become a "banality of evil"

I believe Abraham's obedience--which is the model for Abrahamic obedience to yahweh/god--is wrong, because the supposed command--kill your son--was the most unethical act imaginable

That's not a "good God"

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant Morality for me is Ethics. There are many schools of thought. Opinions will vary

My current measure: some form of "what works". "Judge by fruits" ya know

My hypothesis is that Aristotle and Xunzi were largely correct. "Practice makes perfect" & all. But that's harder than faith

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@Based_BG I don't deny that Jesus existed. It doesn't matter to me

Nor do I deny that people sometimes say they have experienced your god. Some people cut off their genitals bc they think they're born in wrong sex

Serious question: Why should I think any of it is proof of your god?

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@PunchYourFaith @TheExBeliever Science isn't perfect, but it is DEMONSTRABLE, which makes superior to faith

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@Based_BG The only proof for the Abrahamic god is "faith"

FAITH so deep that one is willing kill their son for a god that cannot be proven

All the "scholarly" explanations are pilpul from apologists of FAITH

F--k Abraham and his followers! He was the worst type of person imaginable

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant My beef w Abrahamism is that it crowds out the hard work of self rectification

It doesn't ask you to become a better person; it provides PERSONAL "carrots" (heaven) and "sticks" (hell) for mere obedience to law. The ✝️ vers is the worst, bc it has an easy "forgiveness" mechanism

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant "there is no morality w/o god" is a widely held idea, but it treats obedience as morality

Since obedience is practiced to PERSONALLY gain reward/avoid punishment, it is not VIRTUE. Rather, it's acting selfishly.

Obedience to legalism is a MEANS, not an END. It's fragile

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant Right

Faith is a conviction in something that cannot be demonstrated. It's a product of the self/will

Abrahamic faith is explained ultimately with the Akedah story (Abraham willing to kill Isaac for yahweh/god). They call it ultimate virtue

To me, Abraham is unethical/immoral

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant The question really is: "what would cause a person to revise their prior?"

If nothing would cause them to revise their prior, then they are merely apologists for their prior

That doesn't mean the prior is correct/incorrect, but whether it's a start point for or limit to Reason

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant The point is that Reason was secondary to even Aquinas. He used Reason to "prove" his axioms, not to test them. It's why he cherry picked

The key is whether one is willing to discard one's priors. If not, then they are mere apologists regardless of the topic at hand

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant Orthodoxy places mystical/emotional "divine revelation" above reason. Same mechanism hippy women in Sedona use when they talk about gurus and crystals

That's unreasonable

Redefining "logos" as Orthos do is sophism

You're welcome believe; I won't suspend the ethical to do so

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant I agree. The Catholics were the most scholarly, which is why they are more intellectually interesting than prots and Orthodox

But even Aquinas ultimately stopped his own scholastic project and became mystical

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant My critique of Aquinas is that HE argued from his unquestionable axioms. That's poor reasoning IMHO

His project wasn't truth seeking, but axiom proving. He said if another's Reason doesn't lead to his conclusions, it was bc of the non-believer's sin. That's merely an ad hominem

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@UndeadClothingX @TheExBeliever It's the ✝️ who are the selfish--driven by the idea of the self

Their faith is for PERSONAL gain: eternal life in heaven, easy forgiveness, etc

If your god proves true, he's welcome to judge me. His only complaint would be I had no faith. But that's all he cares about, right?

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant Sophists used arguments also. Liars do as well

The problem is that the arguments of Augustine, Aquinas, et al begin with the desired conclusion

In effect, they were critical theorists, viewing the texts through a "critical lens" of faith

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@UndeadClothingX @TheExBeliever The problem w that Abrahamic view is that the solution is faith. Easy. No work req'd

The ancient Greeks and Confucians had a superior answer: Constant virtue training to be better humans in the community

Sadly, ppl are lazy & want easy fixes just like they prefer TV to reading

[Tizo🗡️ @TizoMcK]

@dardanidae1 @ETerzimehi76081 @Gnosisinformant I don't think Augustine was himself a relativist. He laid the groundwork for opinion>Reason

When ppl eventually questioned god they were lost. They kept the emphasis on opinion, but w/o god as anchor. So all they were left with was "I/my" nihilism/existentialism/relativism...