475 posts shown.
Sam Taylor4 said:When we talk about a topic like "Christianity: 1000 Questions, 1000 Answers," we could easily stick to the core principles shared by every single denomination. But the thread that got locked here was specifically focused on one particular branch of Christianity with its own unique quirks. We've had similar deep dives into other denominations before, and those haven't been shut down!
I’m right there with you. I’m only two posts behind you, and I just finished reading what you wrote.😁
Honestly, there’s really no need to escalate things here. This is a perfectly valid topic, and I don't see any reason why it should be locked. Even though we have the Krscanstvo I000x thread, I don't think there's any reason why specific Christian denominations shouldn't have their own dedicated space. Personally, I'm not super well-versed in the Orthodox faith, so this subject actually interests me quite a bit... it’s kind of like saying you don't need a specialized steakhouse or a local BBQ joint just because there's already an Islam I000x place available somewhere else.🤷
And hey, I actually like Shady, and I'm confident he'll get this sorted out and open up the thread properly.🙂
Scott Wright92 said:Well, you laid it all out there perfectly using a clear example.
Did you miss the specific example he used to kick off this whole discussion about lying?
(.. let me help you out .. he was digging through some .. vague stuff .. on that thread about lying .. the one titled .. Natural Law .. and I guess inspiration struck ..
.. go back and take another look ..)
It’s actually a good thing you spoke up, because we really needed to get you into the loop—honestly, I only just realized you write under the handle @musky too... hey everyone, you use totally different phrasing over there, it's like a completely different person... so, who are you really? How am I supposed to talk to you?
And seriously, what kind of role are you trying to play for redtinker36? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? Do you honestly think we need a translator? Please, if we're going to be wrong, someone will correct us... I shouldn't have to tell you how incredibly irritating that is...
Ronald Rogers27 said:To run away from the Truth... To run away from Death... But will they actually make it? 🤷
Ronald Rogers27
Man, I honestly wish we could lie for those kinds of deep, metaphysical reasons... but my question is why people lie *constantly*. It’s a massive issue—so huge, in fact, that people can't even see reality clearly anymore. You can't build anything meaningful when there's this much dishonesty everywhere. Honestly, it would almost be better if our species had never even developed language in the first place... I mean, what is it actually for?
redtinker36 said:.. Is it possible that the Libyan forces didn't actually shoot down the plane near Benghazi... and that Gaddafi ended up admitting it himself?
.. You aren't the master of your own truth—nor is truth your master—but rather, you are simply a servant to your own master.. Find out who you're actually serving, and you'll realize why you lie..
.. The true witnesses haven't stepped forward yet.. They are people of great faith..
.. When I choose to sit down and talk with someone.. it's because I believe the truth is just beneath their surface consciousness—or perhaps even beyond it—and that they have the capacity to reach it..
.. It’s often buried so deep in the subconscious.. that a person would be willing to face Death long before they'd ever descend that far to find it..
.. Which makes the very idea of a conversation seem a bit foolish..
I’m currently tidying up the garden and packing my bags for the weekend cottage (unhappily, since I've been stressing over summer vacation plans for days), and I’m just sitting here thinking: hold on a second. I made one very simple point. I said that lying is foolish and unnecessary—whether it's those little white lies or the massive, blatant ones. And now you're twisting my words around, dragging them back up into the heavens again... we can't reach the heavens if we're busy lying about trivial things, or lying in general...
I don't serve anyone...
Charles Martin2 Asks:
How can you say there's no necessity? A lie doesn't just manifest out of thin air!
Some people found her essential, while others couldn't have made it through the day without her!
The very first lie had to come from someone who was desperate to bury the truth!
Was the truth actually a disaster? I mean, was it devastating for him personally, or was it a blow to the entire community?
Maybe someone just couldn't handle the truth, so they decided to twist it around.
How on earth would he even run a government? I mean, just imagine him trying to draft a single piece of legislation!
I absolutely ran them through!!!
Because when the laws are written to favor one specific person—they’re the ones calling all the shots!
So, really—where does lying actually come from? How does it even start?
Whether it was helpful or harmful, whether someone used a lie to get by or if it ended up being a total disaster—I just don't see the necessity in it. I’m not even talking about those "white lies" we tell to save someone's feelings or protect a life. I mean the everyday stuff. Those little, pointless deceptions meant just to mislead someone, or that stubborn inability to just say exactly what's on your mind. What is the actual point of all that?
Charles Martin2 said:
Most people who lie—they have to!!
Only the absolute rarest souls tell the truth
but even then, it’s just their version of the truth, along with everyone else like them!
The liars? They’re doing fine!
They’re looking out for themselves and their own interests
while those truth-tellers are just out to cause trouble for others!
They gotta lie, because otherwise they'd actually become what they want to be—and trust me, that isn't it!!!
I don't know, Vito, but it feels to me like lying isn't actually necessary... there's just no real need for it.
I see you’ve identified lying as a major friction point here (and honestly, I think you're right to call it out)... it's such a massive roadblock in any conversation. What’s your take on why people feel the need to lie in the first place?
That was an absolute rollercoaster of emotions for all of us.
It wasn't just about things being laid to rest; when the Creator's mercy reaches down to answer your cry, 🙏 it’s a miracle... nothing short of a miracle.🙏
redtinker36 said:... the idea of a superman...
And there it is. That’s what it really means—documenting a life story... whether we're talking about an icon, a regular Joe, or someone hitting rock bottom... whatever you want to call them.
Should we focus on building something from scratch, or just listen to the feedback already sitting there in the database? Maybe the real move is trying to become that "database" ourselves at the local level—learning how to actually decode the software.
Thomas Carter80 said:I don't quite get this part.
When I look at other people's "thoughts," or see the footprint someone else left behind, I start wondering where I fit into all this. What am I in this massive landscape? Am I even more than a rounding error? ...The big names—think Edison, Warhol, or Jackson—they aren't the ones holding the spotlight; it's nature itself, or rather, the collective consciousness of the natural world. Nature is the celebrity here, and we all just contribute to its legacy by existing. And honestly, what I'm saying isn't even really mine... it feels like a fragment of the very nature that shaped me, influencing me constantly. It's why the past bleeds into the future, and the future is already baked into the past. Everything is just one long, continuous present.
The river keeps flowing, a steady stream; what does my tiny drop even mean in the scheme? (D.C.)
I feel like we're living out the lives of those who came before us. If you focus on the individual, life seems pretty pointless... but if you view life as one giant, breathing organism, then suddenly it makes sense...
I wasn't talking about the historical weight of existence... I was talking about the lack of a fixed blueprint. Aside from the fact that we are rational, two-legged animals—which is our basic setting—nothing is set in stone. There isn't some pre-written "human nature" we're forced to follow. We create ourselves. We forge our own answers based on the hand we're dealt and how we interact with the world around us. We write our own stories. As Ortega puts it:
'The stone is given its existence; it need not fight for being what it is--a stone in the field. Man has to be himself in spite of unfavorable circumstances; that means he has to make his own existence at every single moment. He is given the abstract possibility of existing, but not the reality. This he has to conquer hour after hour. Man must earn his life, not only economically but metaphysically.'Sure, there might be another perspective out there—some distant horizon or a different angle where everything takes on a whole new dimension of meaning. But from where I'm standing, within my own existence, I can only speculate. My own life constantly seeks answers, though it usually just ends up creating more complications, layering new questions on top of old ones, always dancing just out of reach of a final answer. It’s all incredibly dizzying.
Mark Torres14 said:Maybe "human nature" is a myth.
The whole idea of "human nature" implies we’re some finished product. But look at us: we’re the only species constantly obsessed with fixing our own incompleteness. It’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, it leaves us feeling totally isolated in a world where every other creature seems perfectly content being what they are. On the other, it gives us this god-like sense of freedom—this ability to actually shape who we become.
Even physically, we’re outliers. We’re basically just meat-eaters with zero natural advantages. Our brains are massive energy hogs, an evolutionary waste of resources that somehow stripped away all our biological limiters. Now, the only thing holding our development back is physical space.
I’m fairly certain there is no fixed "human nature," unless you're talking about religious doctrines that try to paint a specific picture of us... and even those are just human constructs, prone to shifting with the wind. Isn't it enough to look at the leap from early hunter-gatherers to modern Americans? That's evolution in action. Nothing is fixed. There isn't some grand, capitalized concept of destiny waiting for us—especially not those fairy tales cooked up for social engineering, which is really just a fancy way of saying "controlling the masses." For now, the only constants are that we work, we die, and in the meantime, we just keep doing whatever it is we do...
If the design of man is examined, we see he’s really just a patchwork of every creature, environment, and moment that came before him. Everything beneath his brow is basically a biological machine built from animal instincts and elemental rhythms. We are a mix of horses and crocodiles, honey bees and swans, sardines and raw planetary forces—a blend of redwoods and palms, the Amazon, the Pacific, solar fire, Everest, Weather of water and Air , All The usual stars, and those ancient ocean mammals drifting away from Earth. Below the eyes, there isn't much that's truly "new." We are simply the sum total of everything that preceded us and everything we have ever learned.
...and so we stand here, suspended between the ground and the sky... using our abstract ideas to carve out that specific sense of freedom. It's the one thing that sets us apart from all the other inhabitants—our fellow travelers born from the same stardust—on this spinning rock in a strange Universe where we constantly try to interpret, create, dream, and hunt for answers to "why"... and just like that, time slips through our fingers...
...I love to think that Ortega was onto something when they said “Man has no nature; what he has is history." Personally, I’d call it his-story... at the end of the day, that’s where my little slice of freedom lies... believing that we don't have a fixed nature, but rather just our own unique stories to tell...
Donna Campbell6 said:This whole thing kind of falls under media studies, I guess, but I’m actually more interested in the philosophical and ethical side of it... so mods, please let me keep this in the philosophy section.
So, I rolled into this totally empty coffee shop this morning. The barista was bored out of her mind, so she was glued to some incredibly loud show playing on the TV above the counter—one of those trashy celebrity gossip segments, you know the type. The host was acting all outraged about some teen celebrity couple (honestly, I have no clue who they are, I don't follow any of that tabloid crap) because, apparently, they finally admitted they're dating after insisting they were just friends. The entire segment was basically built on this sense of "outrage"🙄 over their previous "lying straight to the face" of the cameras and reporters. They played the old clip where they said they were just friends, followed by some snarky comment about how "young love eventually realizes lies don't last," right after they probably caught them somewhere and aired an interview where the reporter asks the girl point-blank—why did you lie before? 😲
What we have here is a situation where people who stick their noses most aggressively into someone else's private life—acting from this supposed (Quasimoral) high ground—are demanding an apology!!
And the poor girl actually started making excuses for herself. 🙂
Here’s my take: first—that initial lie was actually the height of politeness, morality, and restraint from people who just want to keep their private lives away from the media, which clearly doesn't understand the concept of leaving people alone (because, honestly, the most human response to that kind of media harassment would be something like: screw you, you idiot!). Second—the subsequent truth/confession is just a sad defeat for those kids. And third—I think Blaise Pascal's famous idea that "morality doesn't care about morality" has never been more relevant or justified than in this era of tabloid dominance and idiots...
Curious to hear what you guys think.
But listen, Donna Campbell6, what you're calling "aggressive intrusion" is exactly what fuels the entire media existence for them (both the girl and the guy). If they push back too hard, they lose their relevance and slide back into anonymity, and that's the last thing they want.
Pascal hit the nail on the head with this one.
.. you already know that this world isn't enough on its own ..
Actually, I’d argue the exact opposite... which is why I don't see any "necessity" acting as some kind of causal essence that had to exist before everything else could start.
When we look at existence, I see causality as a simple chain: "this happened because that happened, and that happened because this happened"... trying to hunt down some independent essence outside of the world feels like believing our reality is just a shadow of something else that actually exists. To me, that's pure nonsense... everything that *is*, simply *is*... (and the nature of being is...)
.. necessity stems from the cause-and-effect organization of the universe .. and that leads to God .. the first cause ..
.. you really believe that line of thinking leads to a God? ..
What "God"... what "first cause"... there's nothing out there... zero.
.. but causes are only close while you're on Earth ..
And where else would you be (if we're treating "Earth" as the entire universe)?
.. this kid thinks things exist just because they *can* .. which is .. obviously wrong .. but hey, there’s a lesson in being wrong ..
.. because you have to hold your ground .. things exist because they *must*..
.. the kid says tomorrow's rain doesn't matter right now .. he's a genius .. wrong again .. but you just have to flip the perspective ..
.. because tomorrow's rain is already a reality today ..
If something exists out of sheer "necessity" (which is how most American religions justify their First Mover, for instance), then logically, that thing still needs a cause. The necessity of an object's existence stems from the very nature of cause and effect... so, once again, we aren't actually getting any real answers here. Personally, I find the idea that something exists simply because it *can* much more compelling...
Hey... it's really good to have you back in the mix with us...