News / Shops in Poland to be closed on Sunday? [208]

...Sunday is not the day we should worship Mammon, cough...

News / Shops in Poland to be closed on Sunday? [208]


cough .. Cleansing of the Temple cough...

News / Shops in Poland to be closed on Sunday? [208]


There is already ban on shops working during certain holidays. However, if you are shop owner, no one can stop you from openig it during such a holiday, as long as it is you yourself, and not your employees, who do all the working that day. I dont think it would be different on sundays, if that law pass.

I know a couple of small shop owners who would be very happy with all the hipermarkewts closed on Sunday.

News / Shops in Poland to be closed on Sunday? [208]


What we have in Poland now.


What people like Delphy would like it to become. Like these two British women who was banned from working in a hospital in Exeter after she refused to hide her cross.


Of course atheism is a religion. It's a belief in a material universe, where only what is measurable by our senses exists.


I am a Pole and currently living in Poland.

News / Shops in Poland to be closed on Sunday? [208]

Atheism is the belief that the universe was created for no reason by no particular force of will or intellect, and that nothing awaits a human after death but eternal oblivion. It is a religion that worships death, entropy, and lack of meaning in life and universe.

News / Shops in Poland to be closed on Sunday? [208]


The purpose of separation of church and state was to keep religious organizations and the state out of each other's business, not to strip all trace of religion from governance and turn the state into a de facto atheist theocracy.

It's funny that in the UK where Church and state are not separated, Christianity appears to be in far worse shape.

Life / Is multi-culti in Poland bankrupt? [73]


No. They became successful earlier, and now they are subiect to multicultural invasions, and slowly but surely gonig down the drain. In 1955 in most of the Western world the crime rate was so infinitesmal, it was nigh non-existent compared to today. A serious crime was front page news all across the country.

When Charles Starkweather went on his murderous rampage in 1957 it was so surreal to the people of the United States it seemed like an alien invasion. Such things were so unheard of they constituted what seemed to be a sea change in the fabric of reality.

In 2013 these things happen ten times a day all over the country and the media can barely be bothered to put it on page three but only if you have an unusual angle like you're going around killing people dressed in a clown suit. Otherwise it's just a typical day in the multicultural paradise. Yes, turning France into a sea of burning cars a couple times a year is just a normal expression of the multicult.

Life / Is multi-culti in Poland bankrupt? [73]

@Delphy:If relevant countries decide to do it, I would understand.

There has never been a successful multicultural society in the long term. None. You can't name one that hasn't, or will not, end in either bloodshed or the oppression of a minority (and in many cases, the majority slowly, slowly turns into a minority.. like the Egyptian copts.).

If we aren't the ones doing the oppression, we will be the ones that will be oppressed in the future. That's all that needs to be said about human nature. It's not about racism, or the belief of the superiority of a race, ethnic group, or culture, but simply a matter of survival. This is where people like the nazi got it wrong, it's not about whose superior, it's just about your will to maintain your own -insert people, culture, et cetera here- and your standing in society.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. Humanity doesn't exactly work with good intentions. The naive will perish.

The freedom we built in western societies will backfire.

Life / Is multi-culti in Poland bankrupt? [73]

Visiting vs staying and polluting the local culture.

Life / Is multi-culti in Poland bankrupt? [73]

What do you mean, Delphy?

Life / Is multi-culti in Poland bankrupt? [73]


And there in lies the problem. That's precisely the issue with the multikult. One people, one culture, one race, one destiny. If the Arabs want to pay homage to Mecca they can do so in actual proximity to the source of their religious ancestry.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


But that has nothing to do with whether a particular moral value is objective. We can agree that murder, depending on situation, is bad for society so we may discourage killing through laws and regulations, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether murder is actually right or wrong. In the Holocaust narrative, the Nazi actually thought they were helping their society by gassing millions of undesirables. It would be very convenient to state that they were "wrong" merely because gassing people would not have helped German society, because that's a forgone conclusion. What if it did help? How are you going to argue then whether genocide is inherently right or wrong?

News / Poland marching for life and family [132]

Talk about straw man....

News / Poland marching for life and family [132]


Only Delphy would have parents and parenting demonized. Yes, we should just allow the state to raise our children, putting them through indoctrination programs. People raised in institutions end up being well adjusted individuals.

News / Krystyna Pawłowicz and the 'marsz szmata' (slut walk) [52]

So, did any "slut walk" achieve anything other than embarrassing attention-craving wymmins? I mean, I don't really see any practical sense in this besides debauchery and attention whoring.

You see bunch of women dressed as prostitutes walking on the streets and being scandalous about it, unless you bother to read the newspaper you won't even know what they are making a fuzz about.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]

Grasping at straws, are you? There is divine, perfect morality, and there are human level approximations. We can only strive to get close to an absolute.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


Huh?


I stand by my words.



You have not offered any worthwhile arguments to the contrary. Your: "not, you are wrong" I dismiss as a fit of temper.


I was never hiding my contempt for modernism.


Both. Admitting that relativism is impossible (on pain on not being able to exist as human beings) is part of proving that objective moral values do exist. Grieg doesn't go further then that, but its already something. Relativism actually carries its own contradiction within itself, being that to refer to something as "relative" already implies an objective point of view, which is a paradox.

That said, to solve the puzzle one has to transcend the limits of reason, but that can only be done from the point of view of "pure intelligence", which was the default stand point of traditional cultures. Religion cannot be understood outside a purely intellective atmosphere, that's why the best it can do is to point logical fallacies in the opposition.

Still, i find listening to an old school logician like Grieg refreshing, compared to the various relativist lunatics that predominate modern western "thought", though i agree that refuting the latter with logic is not in itself an argument for the existence of God. You cannot just demonstrate that relativism is a contradiction, and from there claim that God exists. He should just limit himself to demolish the inconsistencies of modern thought and leave God for another argument.


Yes. Intellective intuition is the real thing though, it is not a mere manifestation of an higher archetype, the way our human intellect is. It is the only supernatural quality mankind has access to in this world. I say has "access" to because intellective intuition is not human, so nobody can claim to possess it in an individual sense. This is why intellection is capable of perceiving the form directly, but the price one pays for this "privilege" is the complete and utter suppression of ones own individual and "human" ego. The process is akin to replacing your sense of being (individual being), which is perishable and relative, with its original, transcendental archetype (being as such), which is timeless and eternal. Most traditions speak of this process as a death leading to an higher state of immortality (you are born again, quite literally. Consider also that the Christian baptism was given to initiates who had achieved this state in the course of their spiritual development, and only later degenerated in the current form, where it is administered to infants. Chew on this, if you can). This process has to occur in this life before it can become a reality in the next world. When Socrates acquitted to his execution, he had already achieved this state, this is why he did not fear death. This is a central and recurrent theme in the Tao Te Ching, but the most extreme example can be found in the details of the execution of Mansur al-Hallaj:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj

This Sufi master had achieved such a degree of transcendental development that the physical world had basically dematerialized for him, even as he was being rend to pieces.

Now, because true knowledge is that which intellective intuition can perceive, basically, knowledge of the forms (knowledge as such), and because those forms exist in an absolute and infinite archetypal state, everything that can be known is already within the reach of the intellect to know. The "kingdom of God is within you". This means that everything that can be known is already etched in our very being, and to bring it out is a sort of "remembrance" more then an actual "learning". This is the point Plato makes at the end of the Theaetetus.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


You still don't seem to understand the argument. There are no objective values without an objective dimension, and this dimension cannot be individual. Without God, man truly becomes the "measure of all things", which means no value can possibly be considered objective. Is Beethoven a genius? Is murder wrong? Is abortion a sin? Who is to say? How do you prove that the subjective values of one individual are actually objective, as opposed to those of another?

So, in the end, you have three solutions to this problem. One, there are no objective values, hence, relativism. This is the default atheist position, and people like Barney have been arguing just that in this forum. Beethoven is not a genius, he is anything you want him to be, every judgement of value being purely subjective and thus only valid for the individual. Two, you agree that there must be an outside point of view that is objective, for objective values do exist, even if they cannot be proven, hence, God must exist also. This is an argument from faith, and its what youtube.com/watch?v=Rmg720wO6tY&feature=related is using, and its also what Dostoevsky has demonstrate in Crime and Punishment, where he systematically destroyed any notion of an "objective" morality derived from a purely human point of view. I think it is this that is bothering you, because you don't like the assumption that values must exist, but if you deny this point, you are back to relativism, where again Beethoven becomes whatever you want him to be, which is simply unacceptable, and the argument starts all over again.

Then, there is a third position, one which posits the existence of a faculty that is "beyond" reason, which is referred by its proponents as "intellective intuition", that is, intelligence as such:

sophia-perennis.com/philosophy/intellection.htm

There is no faith involved here, but direct, total knowledge, acquired by means of the intellect, which partakes into the supreme objectivity of God because the human point of view shares the point of view of the divine, which is objective in the highest possible sense. Thus, Beethoven is a genius, not because i say so, but because i know it to be so. Can i "prove" this to you? Not unless you posses this faculty also. At this point, the question of whether God exists becomes academic. The "obviousness" of his existence is a realization that is bound to happen sooner or later for the individual who understands the world from the point of view of essence rather then appearances.

If you want to know more, this book is the best starting point:

anonfiles.com/file/14e65a3757f8493c48141cb9f651b9a4

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


Now I see what you are unable to grasp. When I state that Beethoven is a genius, I mean it as a fact. It is NOT the matter of "preference". And before you ask for it, no I have no "evidence". There is no point in looking for evidence for the things like genius in art, or religions and faith. Either you grasp it or not.


Whatever.

Evolution is bullsh!t for anyone capable of understanding essences, that is, those possessing actual intelligence. The musings of those incapable of real thinking do no matter.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]

It is hard to explain something to a person that would not listen. Who just hunts for occasion to ridicule the "opponent". What you just demonstrated is that reason is too limited a faculty to deal with knowledge of a transcendent order. By putting reason above all other mental faculties, you are essentially limiting the scope of human intellect to its lowest possible realm of understanding. Modernism in a nutshell. According to this type of thinking, Beethoven is in no measure of manner greater then your Britney Spears. That is, it paves the way for the highest level of idiocy. No concept of a transcendent order can exist in this atmosphere of absolute intellectual atrophy.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


That type of information doesn't matter a whole lot, in the grand scheme of things.

What this statement tells me though is that you are still having trouble understanding what i'm trying to get at.

I think part of the problem is that most people don't see far enough into the realm of essences to fully grasp some of the implications of my statements. When i say Beethoven was a genius, most people will understand that i mean he was really, really smart. They don't see in the word genius the same transcendent and metaphysical essence that i do. Thus, for instance, when i posit that evolution is an impossibility, because it is highly preposterous that such a transcendent element could "rise" from a lesser thing, where it is far more "logical" that it actually descends from something higher, miscomprehension is bound to occur, since the logic is lost if you think there is nothing in genius that a computer, for instance, couldn't replicate.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


Agreed. So is biological Darwinism. The one nonsense paved the road for another. Hence Darwinism being the origin of racism, etc.


It is evolution that places man above the entirety of creation, hence, humanism. Man is the pinnacle of evolution on this planet, and as such, he represents the highest point of development in the universe we are currently aware of. Thus, it is humanist thought that is elitist and dogmatic, and from this comes the folly of believing human "reason" will eventually allows us to create a veritable utopia here in this universe.

My perspective is precisely the opposite. There is no such thing as evolution, a constant transmutation for lower to higher states. To the contrary, there is only a descent from a supreme eternal principle, beyond which lies nothing. In this perspective, the center is not man, but God, to which we are but insignificant beings. Indeed, the only reason we even exist at all is that creation is in the nature of God. That is, God is compelled to obey the laws of his own nature, the only imperative that even Him cannot transcendent. But from the point of view God, who is infinite and Absolute, nothing that exists in the universe is actually of any value whatsoever, being that God is already beyond all perfections, being perfection as such.

This places two absolute imperatives upon man. One, the recognition of his own individual insignificance. Two, the need to transcend the limitations of our inferior and corrupted nature in order to achieve a closer proximity towards the Absolute principle, and thus elevating our status in the hierarchy of cosmological manifestations. It this for this reason that God has allowed us to retain a link with the infinite, for without it we would be doomed to remain in this state for eternity. Hence, we were made in his image, not in the sense that we are like Him in terms of greatness, but that we are like him in terms of our potential for transcendence, and it is in that sense and that sense only that our intelligence receives its proper context. As Schuon said, the intelligence was made for the Absolute, or it is nothing. Meaning, intelligence for the sake of individual aggrandizement or pride is a contradiction, since intelligence, if it is genuine and not simple make believe, cannot possibly be concerned with anything other then transcendent reality, against which our egoistic necessities are meaningless. In other words, one cannot be intelligent without being virtuous, for the two are synonymous with one another.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]

Evolution = social and biological Darwinism, by definition, since evolution and Darwinism are synonymous with each other. There is no wiggle room here, no possible way to escape this simple logical sequencing. Any argument to the contrary cannot be anything other then senseless gibberish.

This is of course a non-issue for me, since anyone with the slightest amount of real brain power will understand that the theory of evolution is pure nonsense, plain and simple. Darwin himself may have not been a complete moron, and that explains why it was his theory that was eventually accepted by modern science and not that of others which were not as internally consistent (like Lamarckism), but his theory was just another building block for the development of the modernistic world view, the world view of pure intellectual atrophy to be exact.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


Social Darwinism is the natural consequence of evolutionary science. If you believe in evolution, and don't believe in social Darwinism, you are living in self deception. Liberalism in a nutshell. First they f*ck society by coming up with sh!t theories and ideas, then b!tch when society acts f*cked up. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


Since you seem to never heard of it, I'd suggest you try to google "social darwinism".


Modern evolutionary biology seems just a way to puss out from the obvious implications of the original theory. Darwin's model is perfectly consistent the way it is. To attempt to change it because you don't like where the theory leads is the height of retardation.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]

All these wrongs resulted from the "secularization" of Europe, rather then doctrinal errors. This is the great fallacy of liberalism, to put the blame on Europe's greatest crimes to anything and everything but themselves. They were the ones to draw Europeans into a "dark age" of the spirit, starting with the rationalism and materialism of the Renaissance. So, when Europeans begun to act accordingly to the precepts of the Renaissance and then Enlightenment (as per human nature, in a lower sense), all of a sudden the same librals started to bi!ch about the evils of "civilized" man. They've been repeating the same tune over and over ever since. Take racism for instance, which was a perfectly natural and "rational" consequence of Darwinism, as was slavery. Every single evil action committed by Europeans has its origin in liberalism. And i mean every single one, no exception. This includes all the evils committed by the Church.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


First time i ever saw anybody argue for some sort of theological nihilism, or theistic atheism. The fact you cannot see the paradox in your own reasoning is amusing. It reminds me of the knight in The Seventh Seal (a vastly overrated film, btw, as anything by Bergman), where he stubbornly kept asking for "evidence" of God, refusing to accept blind faith as an option. The absurdity here is to believe that knowledge of a thing can only come from tangible evidence, that is to say, that nothing exists outside the scope of what we can surmise by reason alone. This is what i mean when i argue that the modern world wallows in sheer stupidity, because the acquisition of knowledge has nothing to do whatsoever with reason, and no knowledge of any kind can be "proven" in such a way, ever. To argue that we cannot comprehend anything of a transcendent nature is to argue that knowledge itself, which is also transcendent, does not actually exist in the first place. And once again we enter the realm of relativism. Was The Seventh Seal a masterpiece? Well, the question is utterly redundant, since there cannot possibly be any tangible evidence for or against such a statement. Thus argues the modern relativist. Funny how some random old fart like Elder George (somebody will remember him) could figure out the nature of knowledge perfectly well, as shown here for instance:

blip.tv/commando-11-digital-montion-pictures/vagina-vocational-centers-114780

But the grand majority of the so called "intellectuals" that populate our academic institutions are just too f*cking stupid to grasp something so simple and obvious. Explain that to me, if you can.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


What a load of bull... Have you even tried to read this nonsense before copy-pasting?
Today, we still have slavery, in the form of third world exploitation, or in the support of policies which allows for mass immigration, with the specific purpose of using those people for cheap labor. Lefists think they can substitute morality with empathy, and then complain that nobody gives a sh!t about the "suffering" of others. Why should people care? And do you see lefists relinquishing their own material comfort which is based on said exploitation of others? F*ck no. It is enough to feel for the suffering of others, but to rise up and fight for what is right, who's gonna do that in a society which believes right and wrong to be relative? The entire west is caught in a consumerist feeding frenzy that knows no apparent bounds, and we think we are so morally superior to our grandfathers just because we grew up in an age where slavery has been outlawed, even thought we had no hand in the abolition of this institution. A bunch of disgusting looking pachyderms, lumbering on like a pack of flaccid truck-sized amoebas, speaking of the injustice inflicted upon the African race as they sip on a frappuccino while sitting comfortably under an umbrella outside their local Starbucks, and they have the temerity to condemn the people who build their damn country.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]

Precisely. What i'm saying is that all religions are divinely inspired and as such they all contain absolute truth. But each religion represents a singular perspective of the truth and is mutually exclusive with other perspectives, precisely because it is unique. The same way the genius of a given artist is mutually exclusive with the genius of another great artist, without that contradicting the definition of genius as an absolute manifestation of individual expression.

Life / First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland! [109]


That's what our intelligence is for. When i claim that Beethoven is a genius it has nothing to do with reason but it is something that i have grasped with my intellect, and the inherent certainty doesn't need any type of discursive proof to be sustained. Its an either you get it, or you don't deal, proof is entirely besides the point. Same when i claim that Beethoven has better music then 50 cent or Bieber. You can't prove either claim with reason, thus, as a rationalist you are bound to declare that the mind is impotent to understand truth of any kind, which is basically relativism plain and simple, except relativism is a paradox since it leads to its own negation (if there is no truth then the claim that there is no truth cannot also be true). Basically, rationalism has led to an intellectual cul-de-sac and western "thinkers" have done nothing but wallow in their own stupidity ever since, and it is from the point of view of sheer idiocy that condescending fools actually think they can ridicule "religion" as a stupid superstition. After all, its easy to ridicule anyone who claims to possess any type of truth if you have rejected that there is such a thing as truth a priori, but see, what makes atheist hypocrites is that they think they can only apply "reason" to religion, while all of a sudden their reason suddenly disappears when confronted with things that they know they cannot deny without demonstrating what a bunch of idiots they are, things like morality, or genius in art.

In short, your game is up. Deal with it. To be intelligence means of being capable of grasping objective realities. To be a rationalist means negating any objective reality and reduce everything to relative contingencies and accidents. The first leads to absolute truth. The second leads to paradox and its own negation. Guess why the ancients chose the first alternative.