Dilettante said:

---

The world is more complicated than it seems. You're a bunch of cells. A landscape is a bunch of rocks, and the rocks are a bunch of atoms. We name groups of things we find useful, but those groups are often poorly defined. What you're calling a "crisis of meaning" is just the reality of the world you live in. You can pretend everything is black and white if you want, and that the world makes sense and you understand it all, but I think you're missing some of the best parts of life.

It is much more interesting for humans to be something molecules do than it is for them to be uniquely and wonderfully made.

---

Science doesn't tell you what's interesting. You're already playing into a narrative which is what all human beings live in. Science doesn't give you categories. Im not saying everything is black and white and I understand it all. Far from it. I'm trying to show y'all how science is nested within symbolic structures. There is no neutral viewpoint. Nobody lives that way.

The interesting part is definitely my opinion. I'm not playing into a narrative. I'm trying to point out the abscence of narrative. It's a sandbox. Embrace it.

Dilettante said:

---

Worship -
noun
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

verb
show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"

---

You're aware there is more then one definition of the term worship, yes?

Or were just being intentionally obtuse to score inernetting points?

Quote:

---

Even if this were true, it wouldn't make atheism a religion.

---

It's a worldview, not a religion, although there are certainly groups of atheist tend to coalesce around certain dogmatic approaches or ethos.

Honestly, it's anyone that would proclaim the have no ethos that would concern me.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

I like to use Santa since St. Nicholas of Myra is my Patron Saint. Gotta rep. So yes Santa has a historical background based off an Orthodox Saint and many people know and understand how those concepts work. However things are real on different levels of reality, not just the material. Bodies are much different and bigger than just a typical materialists view of an organism. We follow these patterns deeply and without them reality wouldn't exist. In the case of Santa his body is a lot bigger than ours. All of the stories come together to form his body. This is why he's always watching, how he gets all over the world in one night, how he can fit through a chimneyetc. his body is real and it works because it's a massive network of people participating in the narrative. It works all the way from some guy dressing as Santa and talking to children to you placing a gift under the tree that says From Santa. It's really not different than how a school functions, military, communities, cities, countries, etc. I can also do the same thing to you. It's not you that typed your message on this board, it was your fingers. We can even use some helpful scientific evidence. They say the human body has completely new cells every 7 years or something like that. Materially speaking you are something completely different every 7 years so what makes you you?

It's why Texas is a thing and real. Not just the dirt and rocks that make it Texas. It's everything else that gives shape to its body and reality. My brother had a comment a while back saying "when I look at a beautiful landscape I now understand that it doesn't mean anything. If I get close enough it's just the same stuff that everything else is made of" This is a good example of the meaning crisis. Although he recognizes the reality of a landscape, his materialists mind tried to block beauty and meaning just as Galileo did with secondary properties. The consequences from all of this is a crisis of identity. Reality unfolds through the human experience. By discovering what it means to be truly human is why all of this exists.

---

I think you are saying that the Santa Claus exists as a collective body of non-material ideas that people have of him. I do not deny the existence of non material ideas. But, surely we agree that the simple existence of a non material idea does not give legitimacy to the truth of that idea or the physical 'realness' of the idea. ie - the idea that Santa flies around with reindeer to give presents to kids is an idea that exists. However, this version of Santa Claus is not true, not real, and only exists in idea form.

Another way to think of it is that Santa Claus does not exist outside of human imagination. If an asteroid took out the planet tomorrow and every human brain, then the idea of Santa Claus would cease to exist.

Same goes for 'Texas'. 'There is a stretch of dirt and rocks that humans have labeled 'Texas' in order to have a way of talking about a particular stretch of dirt and rocks. If every human vanished from the planet tomorrow, then the stretch of dirt and rocks we know as Texas would remain unchanged. But the idea would cease to be.

Beyond what I've just typed, I'm not sure what else I have an opinion on from your post. Its a bit metaphysical for my tastes.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

Worship -
noun
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

verb
show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"

---

You're aware there is more then one definition of the term worship, yes?

Or were just being intentionally obtuse to score inernetting points?

---

This seems to be semantic. If you want to think of an atheist having a deep appreciation for something as 'worship', then fine. And if someone else wants to call atheism a 'religion', then fine. . . But, I think there are clear distinctions. To say that an atheist worships money (as an example) is to use the word 'worship' differently than in saying a Christian worships God.

And I would think that the Christian would oppose the use of 'worship' in the case of how above mentioned atheist feels about money. It seems to me that it is a cheapening of the word when compared to how they feel about God. No?

I included 2 definitions from the dictionary I used, so yes I'm aware more than 1 exist. I just went back and looked at further definitions, and none of those apply either. It's a silly word to use. It's somewhere between totally wrong and very misleading.

It's not a worldview either.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

Even if this were true, it wouldn't make atheism a religion.

---

It's a worldview, not a religion, although there are certainly groups of atheist tend to coalesce around certain dogmatic approaches or ethos.

Honestly, it's anyone that would proclaim the have no ethos that would concern me.

---

I don't know, a worldview encompasses quite a lot, like a shared set of traditions, mores, norms, ethics, metaphysics, and general disposition towards the world, and the word probably encompasses more than that. Christians, at least ostensibly, share quite a few of those traits with eachother. With another atheist I am guaranteed to share only a small part of one of those: namely that we both believe God (likely) does not exist. The traits that comprise a worldview are not dichotomous, so merely stating that I reject a small portion of yours doesn't tell you a whole lot about mine.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Science doesn't tell you what's interesting.

---

Yea, but....

dargscisyhp said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Science doesn't tell you what's interesting.

---

Yea, but....

---

It's funny when atheists see beauty but always find a way to talk themselves out.

Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding “Allahu Akhbar.” Or is that just my cultural upbringing? pic.twitter.com/TpCkq9EGpw

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) July 16, 2018

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

Worship -
noun
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

verb
show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"

---

You're aware there is more then one definition of the term worship, yes?

Or were just being intentionally obtuse to score inernetting points?

---

This seems to be semantic. If you want to think of an atheist having a deep appreciation for something as 'worship', then fine. And if someone else wants to call atheism a 'religion', then fine. . . But, I think there are clear distinctions. To say that an atheist worships money (as an example) is to use the word 'worship' differently than in saying a Christian worships God.

And I would think that the Christian would oppose the use of 'worship' in the case of how above mentioned atheist feels about money. It seems to me that it is a cheapening of the word when compared to how they feel about God. No?

---

I sort of agree with this. Worship is more but there are elements of celebration or veneration in what atheists aim towards. Christians worship God that transcends everything. You can't go beyond that and the result is a proper hierarchy. Principalities are then ordered underneath. In the Christian story you can see where that goes astray with idols. The French revolutionaries worshiped reason, they put statues of her up in churches. I don't think atheism is a religion since it requires religion to exist.

It's an extremely informative aspect of your worldview. It's a rather fundamental one.

Dilettante said:

---

I included 2 definitions from the dictionary I used, so yes I'm aware more than 1 exist. I just went back and looked at further definitions, and none of those apply either. It's a silly word to use. It's somewhere between totally wrong and very misleading.

---

Webster:

Extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem.

That's exactly how I'm using the word. Literally, 100%, exactly.

There's nothing silly or wrong about it. It's exactly how the word is suppose to be used under this definition.

Your condescension when you are obviously completely wrong is rather obnoxious, as is my need to spell that out for you.

Furthermore, it's rather illustrative to the point that you do worship your own ego, as it guides you to confidently proclaim foolishness.

Idolatry is a thoroughly expounded upon aspect Judeo-Christianity, and can take on a variety of forms.

So, no, I don't think all Christians would reject the use of the word worship in this context.

But at the end of the day, I think you both know what I'm driving at. We all have things we esteem above all else. The thing we devout much of our extra energies towards and in defensive of. The context I used the word originally made the point rather clear.

Did we gain something from this pedantic spat on whether worship was the right word to use in this context?

I'm sorry, and this is clearly a weakness of mine, but when people get pedantic when the context makes the point very clear it just irks me to no end. It comes across as childishly trying to score an insignificant "win." And I recognize this as my own weakness. It probably shouldn't bother me as much as it does. Something I should work on.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

I like to use Santa since St. Nicholas of Myra is my Patron Saint. Gotta rep. So yes Santa has a historical background based off an Orthodox Saint and many people know and understand how those concepts work. However things are real on different levels of reality, not just the material. Bodies are much different and bigger than just a typical materialists view of an organism. We follow these patterns deeply and without them reality wouldn't exist. In the case of Santa his body is a lot bigger than ours. All of the stories come together to form his body. This is why he's always watching, how he gets all over the world in one night, how he can fit through a chimneyetc. his body is real and it works because it's a massive network of people participating in the narrative. It works all the way from some guy dressing as Santa and talking to children to you placing a gift under the tree that says From Santa. It's really not different than how a school functions, military, communities, cities, countries, etc. I can also do the same thing to you. It's not you that typed your message on this board, it was your fingers. We can even use some helpful scientific evidence. They say the human body has completely new cells every 7 years or something like that. Materially speaking you are something completely different every 7 years so what makes you you?

It's why Texas is a thing and real. Not just the dirt and rocks that make it Texas. It's everything else that gives shape to its body and reality. My brother had a comment a while back saying "when I look at a beautiful landscape I now understand that it doesn't mean anything. If I get close enough it's just the same stuff that everything else is made of" This is a good example of the meaning crisis. Although he recognizes the reality of a landscape, his materialists mind tried to block beauty and meaning just as Galileo did with secondary properties. The consequences from all of this is a crisis of identity. Reality unfolds through the human experience. By discovering what it means to be truly human is why all of this exists.

---

I think you are saying that the Santa Claus exists as a collective body of non-material ideas that people have of him. I do not deny the existence of non material ideas. But, surely we agree that the simple existence of a non material idea does not give legitimacy to the truth of that idea or the physical 'realness' of the idea. ie - the idea that Santa flies around with reindeer to give presents to kids is an idea that exists. However, this version of Santa Claus is not true, not real, and only exists in idea form.

Another way to think of it is that Santa Claus does not exist outside of human imagination. If an asteroid took out the planet tomorrow and every human brain, then the idea of Santa Claus would cease to exist.

Same goes for 'Texas'. 'There is a stretch of dirt and rocks that humans have labeled 'Texas' in order to have a way of talking about a particular stretch of dirt and rocks. If every human vanished from the planet tomorrow, then the stretch of dirt and rocks we know as Texas would remain unchanged. But the idea would cease to be.

Beyond what I've just typed, I'm not sure what else I have an opinion on from your post. Its a bit metaphysical for my tastes.

---

No you can see and touch parts of Santa's body throughout the physical world. All the different Santa's when your kid wants a picture, taking them to see his sled and reindeer, winter wonderlands, milk and cookies left out at night, presents, etc. This is why I said it's not you typing out these comments, it's your fingers. I agree that the existence of a non material idea doesn't mean it's always true. That's obvious but then we will go down a path of what is true and it's just going to get more convoluted.

If an astroid took out every human brain then everything we know would cease to exist. Consciousness is a key part of how reality lays itself it. We don't even have to use an astroid. You can't prove your house exists until you go home and see it, have someone else verify it's existence, setup up a camera and check the film, etc. How could you prove Texas remained unchanged if nobody is there to verify it?

dargscisyhp said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

Even if this were true, it wouldn't make atheism a religion.

---

It's a worldview, not a religion, although there are certainly groups of atheist tend to coalesce around certain dogmatic approaches or ethos.

Honestly, it's anyone that would proclaim the have no ethos that would concern me.

---

I don't know, a worldview encompasses quite a lot, like a shared set of traditions, mores, norms, ethics, metaphysics, and general disposition towards the world, and the word probably encompasses more than that. Christians, at least ostensibly, share quite a few of those traits with eachother. With another atheist I am guaranteed to share only a small part of one of those: namely that we both believe God (likely) does not exist. The traits that comprise a worldview are not dichotomous, so merely stating that I reject a small portion of yours doesn't tell you a whole lot about mine.

---

Following that logic Christianity isn't a worldview either, in and of itself.

Worldviews encompass a variety of aspects. Whether or not one believes in God being one of the most illustrative ones.

When I define words on this site, I Google "define X" which usually pulls up Oxford. No matter what that definition is, I use it. I think it's better than hunting through 20 definitions online until you find one you want. Which I'm not accusing you of doing, but I think it's good to have a convention like that.

I don't worship anything by that definition either. And technically you're not using it right. The definition you posted is for the noun. You've been using it as a verb, and none of the definitions for the verb fit. That's why you picked the one you did.

Here's the full list:

Definition of worship (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb

1 : to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power

2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion
a celebrity worshipped by her fans

intransitive verb
: to perform or take part in worship or an act of worship

worship noun
Definition of worship (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power
also : an act of expressing such reverence

2 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

3 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem
worship of the dollar

4 chiefly British : a person of importance used as a title for various officials (such as magistrates and some mayors)

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Idolatry is a thoroughly expounded upon aspect Judeo-Christianity, and can take on a variety of forms.

So, no, I don't think all Christians would reject the use of the word worship in this context.

But at the end of the day, I think you both know what I'm driving at. We all have things we esteem above all else. The thing we devout much of our extra energies towards and in defensive of. The context I used the word originally made the point rather clear.

Did we gain something from this pedantic spat on whether worship was the right word to use in this context?

I'm sorry, and this is clearly a weakness of mine, but when people get pedantic when the context makes the point very clear it just irks me to no end. It comes across as childishly trying to score an insignificant "win." And I recognize this as my own weakness. It probably shouldn't bother me as much as it does. Something I should work on.

---

Yes, I think your original point was generally clear. But, at least for my part in the 'worship definition' portion of this thread, I had no hope of being pedantic. Objecting to the term 'worship' was only meant to clarify how I felt about those things that I esteem above others and spend extra energy in defending. There is nothing in my life that I feel in the same way that I think Christians feel about God.

If a materialist were to say that their love of money is the same as your love of God, wouldn't you object? Unless I grossly overestimate how Christians feel about God, I would think you would reject that comparison. If I'm wrong, and you don't feel that your love with God is something spiritual and transcendent and supernatural, then feel free to make the comparison.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

No you can see and touch parts of Santa's body throughout the physical world. All the different Santa's when your kid wants a picture, taking them to see his sled and reindeer, winter wonderlands, milk and cookies left out at night, presents, etc. This is why I said it's not you typing out these comments, it's your fingers. I agree that the existence of a non material idea doesn't mean it's always true. That's obvious but then we will go down a path of what is true and it's just going to get more convoluted.

If an astroid took out every human brain then everything we know would cease to exist. Consciousness is a key part of how reality lays itself it. We don't even have to use an astroid. You can't prove your house exists until you go home and see it, have someone else verify it's existence, setup up a camera and check the film, etc. How could you prove Texas remained unchanged if nobody is there to verify it?

---

I don't agree with what you posted above, but I'm not sure where this discussion is headed or trying to argue for / against. I think this came about in response to something I said, but I'm not following the trail.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

No you can see and touch parts of Santa's body throughout the physical world. All the different Santa's when your kid wants a picture, taking them to see his sled and reindeer, winter wonderlands, milk and cookies left out at night, presents, etc. This is why I said it's not you typing out these comments, it's your fingers. I agree that the existence of a non material idea doesn't mean it's always true. That's obvious but then we will go down a path of what is true and it's just going to get more convoluted.

If an astroid took out every human brain then everything we know would cease to exist. Consciousness is a key part of how reality lays itself it. We don't even have to use an astroid. You can't prove your house exists until you go home and see it, have someone else verify it's existence, setup up a camera and check the film, etc. How could you prove Texas remained unchanged if nobody is there to verify it?

---

I don't agree with what you posted above, but I'm not sure where this discussion is headed or trying to argue for / against. I think this came about in response to something I said, but I'm not following the trail.

---

The point was to break the strict material worldview so you can understand symbolic truths that go much deeper than any scientific truth.

Your previous comments on Christ are shallow. So instead of arguing those I'm just simply showing you how ridiculous and absurd it is to not understand the symbolic structures that have scientific truths nested within them. You discount the human experience while only experiencing reality through that. To understand ancient world views you need to understand their reality at least on some level. Until you do that your view on religion in general is just flat out wrong. I don't mean that to be rude it's just that you have a typical modern progression idea of reality and that's dying out quickly right now.

So the discussion won't go any further since you're just a clump of cells basically. Your identity is essentially worthless and not important. Neither is your family, community, and work structures. It all comes down to that delusion of a neutral view of reality. It's almost like materialists think they are God or at least they are trying very hard.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

No you can see and touch parts of Santa's body throughout the physical world. All the different Santa's when your kid wants a picture, taking them to see his sled and reindeer, winter wonderlands, milk and cookies left out at night, presents, etc. This is why I said it's not you typing out these comments, it's your fingers. I agree that the existence of a non material idea doesn't mean it's always true. That's obvious but then we will go down a path of what is true and it's just going to get more convoluted.

If an astroid took out every human brain then everything we know would cease to exist. Consciousness is a key part of how reality lays itself it. We don't even have to use an astroid. You can't prove your house exists until you go home and see it, have someone else verify it's existence, setup up a camera and check the film, etc. How could you prove Texas remained unchanged if nobody is there to verify it?

---

I don't agree with what you posted above, but I'm not sure where this discussion is headed or trying to argue for / against. I think this came about in response to something I said, but I'm not following the trail.

---

The point was to break the strict material worldview so you can understand symbolic truths that go much deeper than any scientific truth.

Your previous comments on Christ are shallow. So instead of arguing those I'm just simply showing you how ridiculous and absurd it is to not understand the symbolic structures that have scientific truths nested within them. You discount the human experience while only experiencing reality through that.

---

How would you define 'symbolic truth'? The google definitions on the term are a bit all over the place. Based on your posts, would it be fair to say symbolic truth is similar to personal truth? Or would you distinguish it by saying that personal truths do not have to be true, while symbolic truths are actually universally true?

The human experience is subjective and it leads to personal truths. To me, I love my wife and kids and they love me. That is my personal truth. I can't prove it scientifically or objectively. Not being able to prove it does not diminish it.

So, I do not discount the human experience. The human experience is enormously important. But, what we feel is not empirical fact. There are 7.5 billion people that have have varying experiences with varying and contradictory personal truths, I think its fair to say that human experiences that lead to 'symbolic' truths do not necessarily translate to material reality or even universal conceptual reality.

And I think this might be where some of these conversations break down. If your personal experience has lead you to the conclusion that God is real, God loves you, Jesus died for your sins, and that someday you'll go to Heaven. Then those are personal truths or conceptual truths or symbolic thruths. . . whatever the right term is. But it is different from my truths. And I think we could prove pretty easily that not everyone arrives at the same truths.

Discussing religion on this board with some people sometimes feels like we are dealing with 'alternative facts'. If you are debating from a place of pre-supposition of the truth of Christianity based on your personal experience and I am not. . . . . . then your arguments will not make sense to me and mine will seem ridiculous and absurd to you. Right?

Quote:

---

To understand ancient world views you need to understand their reality at least on some level. Until you do that your view on religion in general is just flat out wrong. I don't mean that to be rude it's just that you have a typical modern progression idea of reality and that's dying out quickly right now.

---

What does this mean? Does it mean that I need to understand ancient world views in order for the concept of religion to make sense? The general concept of religion already makes sense to me. That ancient people developed gods and myths and religions seems reasonable to me. It is in line with what people do and the stories the developed were in line with what was known at that time.

Or are you saying that the correctness of one's understanding of religion is predicated on their understanding of ancient world views. Meaning that one's understanding will depend on their intelligence, access to ancient world views, access to translations, resources, and their ability or willingness to spend thousands of hours studying ancient texts, languages, and experiences. I would not expect it to be God's intention that we all become ancient scholars in order to understand Him.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

So the discussion won't go any further since you're just a clump of cells basically. Your identity is essentially worthless and not important. Neither is your family, community, and work structures. It all comes down to that delusion of a neutral view of reality. It's almost like materialists think they are God or at least they are trying very hard.

---

I'm confused. Do materialists think they are God? Or do they think they are a worthless clump of cells?

Orthodox Texan said:

---

So the discussion won't go any further since you're just a clump of cells basically. Yeah pretty much Your identity is essentially worthless and not important. Pretty much correct outside of like ~100 people. Neither is your family, community, and work structures. Again, viewed from the perspective of all humanity across time, yes. It's not like I'm curing cancer or anything everyday at work. It all comes down to that delusion of a neutral view of reality. It's almost like materialists think they are God or at least they are trying very hard. I thought I was a lump of cells that will be forgotten in two generations.

---

So why can't this lump of cells have a discussion with your or anyone elses lump of cells.?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

So the discussion won't go any further since you're just a clump of cells basically. Your identity is essentially worthless and not important. Neither is your family, community, and work structures. It all comes down to that delusion of a neutral view of reality. It's almost like materialists think they are God or at least they are trying very hard.

---

I'm confused. Do materialists think they are God? Or do they think they are a worthless clump of cells?

---

I think this gets at the debate over worship quite well. Worship as defined by the dictionary is not adequate to assess Christian living. It's not just a set time and place, or something you think of fondly from time to time like God. It's a way of being, you're a human doing. You orient everything you do around that and that is what constitutes worship. Everyone and everything has a spiritual dimension so you're interacting with the eternal as you go about your day. That means how you treat people matters because that's part of worship, how you orient your life around work and school, how you behave when you walk into church or a holy place matters.

So yes, the materialist orients his life around himself and his own judgment rather than God. I think it would be reasonable to argue self worship or idolatry is the inclination of the materialist.

AGC said:

---

So yes, the materialist orients his life around himself and his own judgment rather than God. I think it would be reasonable to argue self worship or idolatry is the inclination of the materialist.

---

Is it a necessary characteristic of the materialist?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

So yes, the materialist orients his life around himself and his own judgment rather than God. I think it would be reasonable to argue self worship or idolatry is the inclination of the materialist.

---

Is it a necessary characteristic of the materialist?

---

There are a lot of materialists in the church too. But the materialist doesn't recognize the spiritual so the worship exists towards something else, as their life is fully oriented towards something else. It may be money, or experiences, sex, power, etc. but certainly the idea of self will governing manifests that does it not? Whose will do you follow if not your own?

Can one worship the idea of watching college football on the couch all day on Saturdays in the fall with friends and/or family and drinking cold, delicious beer?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

No you can see and touch parts of Santa's body throughout the physical world. All the different Santa's when your kid wants a picture, taking them to see his sled and reindeer, winter wonderlands, milk and cookies left out at night, presents, etc. This is why I said it's not you typing out these comments, it's your fingers. I agree that the existence of a non material idea doesn't mean it's always true. That's obvious but then we will go down a path of what is true and it's just going to get more convoluted.

If an astroid took out every human brain then everything we know would cease to exist. Consciousness is a key part of how reality lays itself it. We don't even have to use an astroid. You can't prove your house exists until you go home and see it, have someone else verify it's existence, setup up a camera and check the film, etc. How could you prove Texas remained unchanged if nobody is there to verify it?

---

I don't agree with what you posted above, but I'm not sure where this discussion is headed or trying to argue for / against. I think this came about in response to something I said, but I'm not following the trail.

---

The point was to break the strict material worldview so you can understand symbolic truths that go much deeper than any scientific truth.

Your previous comments on Christ are shallow. So instead of arguing those I'm just simply showing you how ridiculous and absurd it is to not understand the symbolic structures that have scientific truths nested within them. You discount the human experience while only experiencing reality through that.

---

How would you define 'symbolic truth'? The google definitions on the term are a bit all over the place. Based on your posts, would it be fair to say symbolic truth is similar to personal truth? Or would you distinguish it by saying that personal truths do not have to be true, while symbolic truths are actually universally true?

The human experience is subjective and it leads to personal truths. To me, I love my wife and kids and they love me. That is my personal truth. I can't prove it scientifically or objectively. Not being able to prove it does not diminish it.

So, I do not discount the human experience. The human experience is enormously important. But, what we feel is not empirical fact. There are 7.5 billion people that have have varying experiences with varying and contradictory personal truths, I think its fair to say that human experiences that lead to 'symbolic' truths do not necessarily translate to material reality or even universal conceptual reality.

And I think this might be where some of these conversations break down. If your personal experience has lead you to the conclusion that God is real, God loves you, Jesus died for your sins, and that someday you'll go to Heaven. Then those are personal truths or conceptual truths or symbolic thruths. . . whatever the right term is. But it is different from my truths. And I think we could prove pretty easily that not everyone arrives at the same truths.

Discussing religion on this board with some people sometimes feels like we are dealing with 'alternative facts'. If you are debating from a place of pre-supposition of the truth of Christianity based on your personal experience and I am not. . . . . . then your arguments will not make sense to me and mine will seem ridiculous and absurd to you. Right?

Quote:

---

To understand ancient world views you need to understand their reality at least on some level. Until you do that your view on religion in general is just flat out wrong. I don't mean that to be rude it's just that you have a typical modern progression idea of reality and that's dying out quickly right now.

---

What does this mean? Does it mean that I need to understand ancient world views in order for the concept of religion to make sense? The general concept of religion already makes sense to me. That ancient people developed gods and myths and religions seems reasonable to me. It is in line with what people do and the stories the developed were in line with what was known at that time.

Or are you saying that the correctness of one's understanding of religion is predicated on their understanding of ancient world views. Meaning that one's understanding will depend on their intelligence, access to ancient world views, access to translations, resources, and their ability or willingness to spend thousands of hours studying ancient texts, languages, and experiences. I would not expect it to be God's intention that we all become ancient scholars in order to understand Him.

---

Symbolic truth is how reality presents itself to you. There is no truly abstracted objective view. Unless you are doing some crazy Dr Strange style astral projection then your body and consciousness in this world are one and that is the beginning of reality. Any description we have of the material world stems from human consciousness which is why I said science is nested within the symbolic reality.

So yes symbolic truth is personal in the sense that everyone participates through consciousness but it's not subjective. If human experience was purely subjective then there would be no order and just chaos. You wouldn't even be able to understand what a wife or family is. Love is not subjective but yes people can have wrong ideas of love but those inevitably fail, like the sexual revolution and it's consequences. Once again going back to Galileo and his decision (which was based on human experience) to place things like love under secondary properties.

This is why I said Christ's story brings all of the elements together. It's universal/symbolic in every sense. No you don't have to understand symbolism to believe in the story Christ. If you are doubting it and making a claim for atheism/humanism or even an agnostic view then it would certainly help. As I mentioned before, a lonely island dweller that has never heard of Christianity can participate. My Orthodox Church has plenty of recent converts from atheism and we have these discussions all the time. I've noticed a lot of Orthodox converts love these types of discussions. But then again there are Christians who could care less for any talk like this and journey closer to God then some dude who likes theology and philosophy. The Christian experience is participating in the narrative, not thinking about it.

I think we are going in circles now though. I might setup another thread discussing universal history and how religions and stories all over the world point toward Christ and what they share.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

So yes, the materialist orients his life around himself and his own judgment rather than God. I think it would be reasonable to argue self worship or idolatry is the inclination of the materialist.

---

Is it a necessary characteristic of the materialist?

---

There are a lot of materialists in the church too. But the materialist doesn't recognize the spiritual so the worship exists towards something else, as their life is fully oriented towards something else. It may be money, or experiences, sex, power, etc. but certainly the idea of self will governing manifests that does it not? Whose will do you follow if not your own?

---

Maybe I'm holding on too hard to an aversion to the use of the word 'worship'. Ultimately, I generally agree with your statement. A materialist would not recognize the spiritual and what they value would be something else. Does your position suppose that everyone MUST worship or idolize something in their lives? Or can someone have nothing that they worship? Does the thing a materialist values the most (be it self or money or whatever) default to the level of worship and idolatry simply on account of being that which is most valued?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

So yes, the materialist orients his life around himself and his own judgment rather than God. I think it would be reasonable to argue self worship or idolatry is the inclination of the materialist.

---

Is it a necessary characteristic of the materialist?

---

There are a lot of materialists in the church too. But the materialist doesn't recognize the spiritual so the worship exists towards something else, as their life is fully oriented towards something else. It may be money, or experiences, sex, power, etc. but certainly the idea of self will governing manifests that does it not? Whose will do you follow if not your own?

---

Maybe I'm holding on too hard to an aversion to the use of the word 'worship'. Ultimately, I generally agree with your statement. A materialist would not recognize the spiritual and what they value would be something else. Does your position suppose that everyone MUST worship or idolize something in their lives? Or can someone have nothing that they worship? Does the thing a materialist values the most (be it self or money or whatever) default to the level of worship and idolatry simply on account of being that which is most valued?

---

Worship in our culture carries the connotation of going to a place on a day to do a thing. Or of the singing part of the service if you're evangelical. Or some sort of special act not found other places (like your shrine at home).

But the orthodox view sees worship in everything. In your work, your treatment of others, how you treat your body, your thoughts, your mind. It is how you live, not just whether you go to a place on a day to do a thing (which is certainly a part of it too). This wouldn't be foreign for the ancients either as the romans and others executed people for not worshiping their gods (not just street lynchings mind you but the king, the head of government, made this happen because religion was intertwined with government and all parts of society, down to the meat being sold in villages having been offered to gods as a sacrifice). That's what orthodox was alluding to in some sense as well.

So if that's worship, then yes everyone worships something. How you orient your life would indicate what you worship.

Quote:

---

You've been using it as a verb, and none of the definitions for the verb fit. That's why you picked the one you did.

Here's the full list:

Definition of worship (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb

1 : to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power

2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion

---

...


...


...


...


...

End of line.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

So yes, the materialist orients his life around himself and his own judgment rather than God. I think it would be reasonable to argue self worship or idolatry is the inclination of the materialist.

---

Is it a necessary characteristic of the materialist?

---

There are a lot of materialists in the church too. But the materialist doesn't recognize the spiritual so the worship exists towards something else, as their life is fully oriented towards something else. It may be money, or experiences, sex, power, etc. but certainly the idea of self will governing manifests that does it not? Whose will do you follow if not your own?

---

Maybe I'm holding on too hard to an aversion to the use of the word 'worship'. Ultimately, I generally agree with your statement. A materialist would not recognize the spiritual and what they value would be something else. Does your position suppose that everyone MUST worship or idolize something in their lives? Or can someone have nothing that they worship? Does the thing a materialist values the most (be it self or money or whatever) default to the level of worship and idolatry simply on account of being that which is most valued?

---

Worship in our culture carries the connotation of going to a place on a day to do a thing. Or of the singing part of the service if you're evangelical. Or some sort of special act not found other places (like your shrine at home).

But the orthodox view sees worship in everything. In your work, your treatment of others, how you treat your body, your thoughts, your mind. It is how you live, not just whether you go to a place on a day to do a thing (which is certainly a part of it too). This wouldn't be foreign for the ancients either as the romans and others executed people for not worshiping their gods (not just street lynchings mind you but the king, the head of government, made this happen because religion was intertwined with government and all parts of society, down to the meat being sold in villages having been offered to gods as a sacrifice). That's what orthodox was alluding to in some sense as well.

So if that's worship, then yes everyone worships something. How you orient your life would indicate what you worship.

---

Clearly put, thanks! Under that definition of worship, I suppose I would not be able to take any exception to how it was used.

I think maybe chalk this one up to words having too many different meanings.

Yeah, I don't worship anything by that definition.

There's nothing about which I feel similar to how an extreme fan feels about a celebrity. Nothing I can think of, at least.