Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

This is the contrast between Buddhist and Christian thought. Both start from the point that humanity is flawed and limited by perception and unable to percieve absolute truth and then go in two different directions.

The Christian POV is that there is an absolute truth that is God and overcoming perception brings us to God. There is always a duality between human and God but the human can aspire to be with God Reality is the ultimate proof of God since reality exists and reality is truth but perceptions and our mind cloud us to accepting that truth.

The Buddhist though says that there is no absolute truth but nothingness and that reality is a creation of our perceptions. There is no duality between God and human because really all are the same including reality and its the creation of our sense perception. The goal isn't to be with God but to realize that we are God and everything else already since those are concepts created by our mind.

Y'all agree?

 

Yeah. Thanks. This is why I somewhat left Christianity (at least those parts).

The idea that we are somehow ultimately separate from everything else, or that we ultimately exist independently is detrimental.

 

Yes

Except I would say this about logic and empiracism- humans rely upon logic and empiracism, but God has no need to.

The design of gravity actually is vital to the flight of an airplane. Truths of lift, aerodynamics, energy, force/thrust, friction, gravity etc, etc all play a part. 2000 yrs ago all the truths were at work but the human logic and empiracism was inadequate to get a F16 into the air.

God knew all the truth all the time.

That is why I said ten out of ten people die. God said the soul that sins shall die. Now I might have my perception of God, sin, soul and death but my perceptions don't establish any truth. God does that.

Are you getting older? Truth is truth. Evidence may provide us a perception but truth always wins in the end.

That is why I listen to what Jesus said. Not because I think I'm right. I think He's right. (woe to the man who thinks he's right) Again we are left to perception and revelation.

But revelation is far more important. That is why I rely on the Bible and others have writings they rely upon. We each get our own perception. God offers the truth. He said it can be seen in creation. He demonstrates it in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. And on and on. Faith can be misguided, but truth does not change.

Faith then is a matter of our own unity with truth. So we don't have to separate faith from logic and empiracism as long as truth is the basis. Where logic and truth collide is always in the realm of perception.

The Bible says- Faith comes from hearing (revelation) a word (truth) from God.

The fastball of death is coming at 90 mph towards me, I perceive it, but it is the truth that demands I respond. My own perception may be wrong.

If I have the wrong answer there must a be right answer.

The right answer would be the truth.

You could say that God doesn't believe in atheists.



Sishir Chang- if the truth is there is no God, what could I do to change that? If we are under the absolute power of anything it is truth.

 

Did you ever consider that the whole religion of Bible Christianity is dealing with one issue- what happens after death.

We hopefully have death in the truth column.
The rest requires faith. Truth will be the winner.

 

It is dealing with their fear of the illusion of death.

 

Slow day at work... Good to hear from you Mr. MEOWGI

I don't fear death, I fear illusion.

 

"Suchness
as it expresses itself inwardly
may be likened to wood or rock,
it remains there
unmoved, unshaken,
while outwardly
it is like space,
nothing is obstructed or checked.

Suchness, as it is free
both from activity and passivity,
knows no orientation,
it has no form,
there is in it neither gain nor loss."

- D. T. Suzuki

 

I think your thought works when one is talking of the idea behind the dialectic understanding of history and with the ideal democracy, but when we are looking at the reality there is no real synthesis as an elevated concept. Often "compromise" is mostly one-sided in order for it to be passed by the majority or is too watered down to be worth anything so that it will be passed by both sides. this is not a true synthesis. And, as I said, the other agents would be impossible to properly identify, as they are nver constants.

So, basically, I am not arguing with you and think your thoughts are fine, but on a mor informal level.

 

There is a pretty well established mathematical theory that truth can not be defined - Tarski Undefinability Theorem. So it seems that Christians, Buddhists, and mathematicians all say we can not know the truth.

So, if we can not know the truth, how can we know there is a truth?
If we can not know the truth, what is right and what is wrong?
Is it possible to create a moral code without the concept of right and wrong?

This leads us down the path of relativism and nihilism which I dislike but cannot seem to logically disagree with.

 

Pilate: Then your a King?!

JCSS: It's you that say I am! I look for truth, and find that I get damned!

Pilate: But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law?! We both have truth's, are mine the same as yours?!

 

We should take them absolutely if we feel we could understand them perfectly, which we can't. Christ says a number of times, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” We can hear, but no one hears perfectly or understands perfectly. But we are to try to understand and when we think we do we are to act on that understanding. If we come to believe that our understanding is perfect, however, then we’re in trouble.

I have no problem with preachers telling me what they believe. I very much like that in fact. Tell me your experience, what you’ve learned from the Bible, what you’ve witnessed in other people, and what other people have told you about their experience. It may seem subtle, but for me and I think for many other Christians and non Christians there is a world of difference between, “I believe with all my heart and soul that this is true!” and “What I’m telling you is the absolute truth of God!” The former I’ll listen to intently and their story will invariably trigger some very significant realisations for me. The latter is someone who has overstepped his authority and who therefore speaks with no authority. I get very little from these sermons.

 

Agent94- (it should be obvious I often don't know what I am talking about, I am enjoying the D&D)

1. I think Tarski in reality (no pun ) is saying that all perceived truth is abstract.
I think he said that you cannot take the assumptions of language and establish a truth of higher order than the language.

1+1=2

Tarski would point out that 1 is self-represented. All other possibilities are not ruled out by the description given 1. He would say that since there is no language that is powerful enough to establish its own self-representation there is no way to establish truth. So truth cannot be known.

The error here is that truth is not dependent upon that perception. We all know that 1+1=2 always works mathematically. We also know that is not what makes it a truth. That is only our observation. If 1+1=2 is true it is not affected by possibilities or perceptions. In fact all truths are self-represented.

If anything he was right in that truth is not determined by language, that is just man's attempt again at perception by logic.

This is precisely why truth should be so valued by Christians.

God is truth
God reveals truth to man
Thus man can know truth

That is a very good foundation for faith.

What Jesus said matters to me for this very cause. I want my faith to be in truth and after death truth will win. (this is the most important thing I am saying- after death truth will prevail against perceptions, I cannot overemphasize this) Remember ten out of ten people die, it is the best statistic in the world.

You can know truth. But without God you probably need to concentrate more on Tarski.

As a Christian I believe very much in the truth of eveything Jesus said. Well how do I know the Bible is truth?

Faith.

Truth does not change.

Faith in truth will not fail.

Everyone has a perception.

Seek truth and be sure of what you believe.

Don't give up on Christianity, in fact read the words of Jesus with truth in mind.

 

But surely you could identify a large number of different thesis/antithesis pairs from these parties platforms. Many of the books on this list address issues that would tend to be seen one way by Republicans or at least certain groups of Republicans and another way by certain groups of Democrats. Wouldn’t you agree? I agree that in the short term and because of the nature of political debate these days the two sides are not listening to each other and therefore aren’t likely to realize a synthesis on these issues, but over time you do see some movement. For example, 50 years ago in Canada there were still parties that favoured capital punishment, but that debate, though any number of one on one debates, achieved a synthesis whereby no party and very few individuals believe in capital punishment anymore. Longer mandatory sentences for some crimes and things like the Dangerous Offenders Act have been adopted from the former pro capital punishment side, but this outcome isn’t merely a trade off. Most Canadians came to understand that capital punishment is wrong, and the need for stiffer penalties in some situations.

But the larger societal shifts occur because a critical number of individuals have engaged in such debates and achieved a higher level of understanding on certain issues. Maybe strictly speaking it’s more correct to call these individual debates a more generalized dialectical process while the Hegelian dialectic refers only to the macro level changes? I’m not hung up on the terminology but I think it’s important to look at the process on the level of the individual as well as the macro level changes. Books like the ones on this list are an important part of that dialectic on the individual level, which is why the labelling of Marx’s books, amongst others on the list, as some of the “most harmful” is such a telling act. This is pure conservatism. It’s a fear of engaging the dilemmas/antitheses posed by these books and coming to understand the world in a different way. I think conservatives are afraid of people simply switching sides, but by taking this position they stifle the possibility of the synthesis, of achieving the higher level of understanding that transcends both positions. Frankly, the conservatives on the left do the same thing.

 

I couldn't agree with you any more... I do like to here the opinions, expressions and learnings of preachers. We both know that those perceptions are not what establishes truth for us.

Whether I say such and such is absolute truth or I have a very strong opinion such and such is true has no effect on truth.
In fact I could say I believe with all my heart, soul and cross my heart and hope to die and have no influence on the truth.

I think what you are emphasizing is that there are many perceptions of truth even among Christians. Perceptions don't do anything for the truth.

The truth should impact our perception not the other way around.
This is where we are a little off the same page together.

If I lie a little bit, and you don't lie at all and another person lies for breakfast, lunch and dinner who is the liar? Well if God is truth and God is just he will let us all know one day. I don't think much about how hard and strong I believe something; I think of truth.

That is what we will all face in time and eternity.
My perception, my belief is that truth is in Jesus Christ.

I CAN know truth. But God DOES know it. There is a big difference for me in those statements and it keeps me very humble before a sovereign God.

The more we are on the same page with God the better off we are. I don't try to judge others but the ideas and concepts are very important, the perceptions really matter. I have thought alot about posting here and I am sure I can't say something that would change someone's mind. I'm not trying, I am just posting.

Like I said before truth is that one thing that will not change and will be true always and in the end.

 

I think I’m coming to understand where rhester is coming from better. I think he and I are getting to the same place in many ways but we come from very different directions. So my answer to this is going to sound very different than his, but I think that’s largely because I’m coming at it from a very different direction.

For me the realisation that we can’t know absolute truth is liberating. It marks the end of where pure logic can take you. The journey must then be continued in the spiritual realm. What do you know and believe spiritually? What is “truth” in a spiritual sense? This is an internal journey to meet God on a personal level.

The question of the moral code is important here in two ways IMO. On a personal level it’s at least in part the realisation that one can’t meet one’s own moral code, that one can’t be justified by one’s own actions, that drives us toward a relationship with God. This was the very point of the biblical law, in fact, to show us that we can’t make it by the law, but only by Grace through relationship with God.

In a worldly sense it tells us that although we may approach a moral code with our laws we will never have it completely right, so we can never be arrogant or self-righteous about our application of law. We must do it humbly always looking for where we’re wrong and how we can correct it. And we can never be judgmental about our application of the law. “Let he who is sinless cast the first stone.”

 

I don’t think I disagree with you, at least not much, but I’m really not sure where you’re coming from on this. Yes, I believe that there is an absolute truth, but on this side of Heaven all we have of it is our perception of it. That’s all we get. I don’t mean this in a strictly intellectual way either. We have our personal spiritual truth that came from our personal meeting with God, and for an individual that is typically the truest thing they will ever experience in their lives, but beyond that even our spiritual life is filled with many mistakes, sidesteps and misperceptions. So I don’t understand what you’re trying to say with your emphasis on truth. I don’t think I understand the context around the point you’re making.

 

That's where Buddhist meditation picks up.

 

We are saying the same thing. With some different perspective.

On this side of Heaven we make mistakes, sidesteps and have misperceptions (with respect to absolute truth).

And we get to use our logic, reason, observations, faith, will, emotions, and intellect to form our perceptions on this side of Heaven.

Jesus came to this side of Heaven. God speaks to man on this side of Heaven.

I find that truth can be found in Jesus Christ. How much have I found- God be the judge I have a long way to go.

I believe God designed gravity and energy and mathematics and a host of other absolutes that are reality.

And in the moral realm God designed absolutes. In the spiritual realm God designed absolutes. Why do I say that, because God is truth (absolute-reality)

Do I have the truth, no, God does and I can only perceive what truth He has revealed to me. That is why I look at a painting and see a painter and I look at a flower and see a Creator.

No one has to show me every contractor that ever built a building to give me a perception that there is a contractor. I have a revelation of a truth- building- builder.

Funerals don't give me a perception of death. I have a revelation- God said the soul that sin shall die.

But I could look at the Tsunami damage and stare at the carnage and suffering and get a perception that God is evil, unless I had a revelation that gave me a different perception.

Now what is the truth? Is God evil? Is there a God? Those are perceptions we debate. But the debate has no bearing on the truth.

That is what is important. You see I am saying that none of us have absolute truth or we would be God. God has absolute truth and that is reason enough to believe in God and to know God and to seek God.

I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by me.- Jesus Christ

This is what I believe- I am either right or wrong- the truth always has the final say.

 

So I don't make it any more unclear-

It is that revelation (word from God) that I place my faith in.
I can't tell you if I am right or wrong, I believe- God judges

If I die and God sends me straight to hell I won't have one complaint. If my Christian faith fails me I will fail.

Let us trust Him who is able to keep what we commit to Him against that day.

 

This is getting real deep.

Grizzled, it sounds to me like you're saying that God also is absolute truth but a truth beyond empiracally knowledge. So whle Rhester is saying that God is reality you seem to be saying God is beyond reality.

Am I getting that straight?

Now not being a Christian I'm not sure which one is more Christian and am guessing that both are equally valide Christian theology. The question I have then is where does the role of miracles play in either of these views?