We didn't deny the existence of Jesus (at least me). You are mixing up two different premises. That the existence of Jesus leads unavoidably to his crucifixion. Thus, without the crucifixion, we couldn't hold the existence of Jesus. Well, this is a fallacy. It is obvious that we all can agree on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I promise I don't deny this. But... What comes afterward of Jesus' death is a big mystery written by the apostles, and they left many non-answered questions.

Still, as a group (and it's a big group) American Christians do not buck the system. — BC

It's in the extremely conservative branches of Christian political behavior. — BC

They do not buck the system, because they are the system.

We live in countries where the values, ethics, customs, etc., are based on Christian principles. If we look at the banknotes of the USA, it says: In God We Trust. The currency of a nation rests in a religious sentence. And so more around the Western countries, not just the United States.

On the other hand, I think Christian lobbies or Catholics or Protestants only take part in politics when they feel those values are at risk. A religious practitioner would ask for the vote to the right, because the latter provides traditional ideas like same-sex marriage, the local economy, the presence in school and teachings. Writing this brief paragraph, I wonder if Christian groups only feel they are part of the system when the current government is Conservative, and maybe when a Leftist/Progressive government is running the country they would feel excluded from the system.
But again, this is really odd. The Church is always there. For example, the Orthodox Church is very powerful in Russia, even though it has a past under Communism. I think it is not possible to imagine a religion not tangled with the state. Some nations are more secular (France), and others give so much credit to religion, like Brazil (Evangelists).

But they will be there. It is an important core of values. Maybe you and I do not really care, but millions and millions do.

Sonetos by Camões, in both French and original Portuguese. Both are hard. — Lionino

A Portuguese poet of the Renaissance. Interesting. I think he also wrote in Castilian.

Good OP, Athena. Very interesting.

If I didn't understand you wrongly, you seek a state that is secular -or at least - the most separated of religion. I agree that religious groups used to tangle with political groups, and specifically, to the right or far-right of the political arena.

I guess it is due to the reasons which a Catholic/Protestant or Christian Nationalist shares with the right faction: tradition, Christian values, heterosexual marriage, Western predominate, etc.
It would be weird to see a religious group supporting the left. They didn't do so, and neither will do. They are aware leftists are progressive and this means they are against the traditional values. Then, it is obvious that if Catholics or Protestants have to get into politics, they will go to the right wing.

This is why Christian Nationalists are cheering the people to vote for Trump. Here the same happens. I live in a Catholic country, and it is obvious that the Episcopalian Confederation is Conservative, and they ask to vote for the right.

It is fun when Protestants prevented Catholics from having power because they are more 'liberal' (?)... but at the end of the day, they share the same political ideology and even lobbies! AKA Christian Democrats: sceptical stance towards abortion and same-sex marriage, opposition to capital punishment and assisted suicide, the prohibition of drugs, opposition to secularisation, opposition to state atheism and a rejection of communism.

Breadnan used the word "universally", as if everyone on the planet was a Christian! Well, Christianity, even if it is the largest religion in the world --it forms about 30% — Alkis Piskas

Yes, Brendan believes in something which has been the subject of controversy for centuries. Even amongst Christians there is a big debate about whether the crucifixion actually happened, or if it is just a 'metaphor' of the Bible (like the rest of the references to Jesus in that Holy Book). Honestly, I can't think of anything which is universally accepted. Even the shape of the Earth has its own denials: flat-earthers, etc. :grin:

Certainly not. And I would add that even if one accepts Jesus crucifixion as an historical event, his resurrection is quite a controversial if not a fake story — Alkis Piskas

I agree. The resurrection of Jesus was written by the Gospel authors, so the credit and reliability are low. For Christians, this is the biggest mystery of their religion. But... it doesn't go beyond just that. A faith, a mystery, a belief, etc. They are free to believe in the Resurrection, but it is hardly accepted outside Christianity. Even other religions (like Judaism) reject that part of the Bible.

It would be much better if it were built based on and around the human side of Jesus, as a teacher, as is the case with Buddhism. — Alkis Piskas

True! Like Kazantzakis purposes in his magnificent books. It is sad that the only image of Jesus is the one that appears in the Gospels. When Jesus of Nazareth was a real person and it would have been interesting to know more about his persona.

If it's entirely fabricated, then why is it universally accepted that Jesus was baptized and crucified? — Brendan Golledge

In addition to the argument of @Alkis Piskas that a believer would blindly follow whatever the Holy Book says, I disagree when you state that the crucifixion and baptism of Jesus Christ is 'universally' accepted. This is not true and this is even the cause of why the Christian religion (and other religions) split apart into different factions.

For example:

Islam: The Quran says in Surah An-Nisa [Ch 004: Verse 157] "And because of their saying, 'We killed Messiah ʿĪsā, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allāh', – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts.

Manichaeism (a Gnostic religion): Adhered to the idea that not Jesus, but somebody else was crucified instead. Jesus suffering on the cross is depicted as the state of light particles (spirit) within matter instead.

The Sharfadin also believe that: Jesus is thought of as a "figure of light" who could not be crucified...

So, no. It is not universally accepted that Jesus was crucified. :smile:

Hmm... OK let's leave it here. We both expressed our views on this topic. My intention was to protest why I am tired of receiving endless mockery for being from Spain. I am aware that we have a lot to improve, we are not perfect and there are better EU countries.

But Jesus... We are not monsters... Nor retards. We can write books or paint on canvas too.

I will not regret any second being Spanish in my life. It is not about a question of nationalism but self-respect. Yes, none nation is perfect but we receive more mockery than others. Again, I don't usually read criticism on France or Germany...

A person can't be fond of Spain unless also fond of bullfighting and adverse to poking fun at a Genoese? You surprise me — Ciceronianus

No. You didn't refer to just bullfighting. I dislike it and most Spaniards do. You also pointed out in your blog that we are not better than most other nations because our 'heritage' is Fascism, the Spanish Inquisition, Franco, Genocide, etc. You literally wrote: Spain being no better generally than most other nations, its common cultural heritage may be said to include some less than admirable things... [and then you wrote all that crap]
The sense of your words is like that's just Spain, no more. When we have eight Nobel laureates and other interesting stuff, which I will not post here because I will not change the mind of someone who already has negative prejudices on my country.

I suppose admiration for such as El Greco, Velasquez, Goya, Picasso, Cervantes, Santayana, Las Cases, and Ortega y Gasset — Ciceronianus

And many more... a thousand old country has a lot of personalities and culture.
It is just frustrating that nobody rants about Germans (for example) because of their Nazi past. They are only known for good things, like philosophers, engineering, economics, etc.

No way we are known thanks to Cervantes or Goya. The people quickly reminds us that dark period of our history. You are an example of that.

I was showing evidence against Ciceronious' own hypocrisy, and then you showed up out of nowhere. Don't expect me to behave like a kitty. When I feel attacked, I respond.

I am not talking to you, and I think it is bad manners to mind other people's businesses, but I don't deny any of that data. I am only confused about how someone is 'fond' of Spain and then he refers to my country using that tone.

I am quoting the following from your own blog:

Spain being no better generally than most other nations, its common cultural heritage may be said to include some less than admirable things, e.g. fascism, civil war, slavery, the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expects) and, some would even say, genocide in the Americas. Is it therefore the case that only its central government may prohibit such things? Probably not.
Regardless, though, I wonder whether the Spanish people are well served by a court ruling that bullfighting is part of their common cultural heritage. A heritage of gaudy, gruesome torment of animals wouldn't seem something to be proud of. https://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com/search/label/Spain?m=0

It's a beautiful city [Barcelona] of great, wide boulevards and fountains, and an impressive seafront graced by a statue of Columbus majestically pointing to the India he thought he would encounter in 1492. I would think a statue of that great man shrugging his shoulders or scratching his head would be more appropriate.

Oh yes! You are very fond of my country! How can I think otherwise?

Fine. I don't have anything to object to. It is just the idea I conclude whenever I read your comments and other's. It is not the first time. It is something I came across reading different threads where this topic arises.

But I will not waste mine and your time discussing this... I gave up. I already know what the common sentiment and position are regarding this topic.

@Lionino I will give you a wise advice because I really like and respect you. Don't waste your time on this kind of topics. As a Spaniard myself, I spent so much time using the same arguments as yours , but I came with the following conclusion: numerous members of this forum hate Spain, Portugal and England equally, and they think Western civilisation is the worst, our countries suck and we are bloody genociders, etc. But you know what is the biggest irony? None of them would go and live in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Kenya, Angola etc. Most of the people who are against us, live and will live in the West side of the world.
So, don't waste your time. Your arguments and comments are very interesting, but regarding this topic... it is like discussing with a moocow. Our time is priceless. Qué les den a estos fodechinchos…

The Tunnel, Ernesto Sábato. — javi2541997

10/10.Excellent. I really enjoyed this book. Sábato had a great talent at developing the psychological behaviour of the characters. Juan Pablo Castel is the name of the main character. He is an artist, and well... he suffers from his own fantasies, dreams and the heavy sense of hopelessness.

Currently reading: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce.

Your multiple choice object reminds me of a dietary supplement. It can help me whatsoever because it contains all the nourishment I need. I guess I would miss the taste of food per se. For example, I would use the nourishment pill in this way: I usually take tomato with olive oil for breakfast every morning. Although it is a good combination to start the day with, I know it doesn't hold all my mind and body needs, so in addition to my breakfast, I will take a nourishment pill to get vitamins, Taurine, Caffeine, etc.

Port or Albariño?

I fully agree. Steven Pinker also points out interesting arguments regarding meta-linguistics. According to him, whenever we see a linguistic challenge or a word we have never read before or a verb we have never conjugated, we tend to overcome the challenge using the easiest way of our native language, logically speaking. For example: children (and non-native speakers like me) frequently make mistakes in irregular verbs. It is obvious that the past tense of 'to fly' is flew.
But usually, when a person can't understand the irregular answer, he quickly says 'flyed' because most of the English verbs tend to end in 'ed' in the past tense. What they do not do is create even a more complex solution.

This is why I see this very interesting. Pinker (like you also stated) argues that when humans debated about establishing a new universal language they all ended up failing because of the complexity. Why do we act this way? Are we complex when we reach maturity?

I can only ask why you think it is in jeopardy. I personally think if I started a thread on Kierkegaard, we all would have the opportunity to exchange our ideas. I don't see the philosophy of Kierkegaard in 'jeopardy' because his concept of anfægtelse lacks having a unified concept. Furthermore, this is why the discussion becomes interesting.

On the other hand, philosophy is not mathematics. We can't establish universal accepted concepts. For example: Do you think it would be possible to have a unified definition of metaphysics?

There are some philosophical concepts which can't be unified at all. I will use an example: The philosopher I read the most is Kierkegaard.
K, in his writings, uses specific words of the Danish vocabulary. One of them is 'anfægtelse'. I have the Spanish version of Fear and Trembling, and the editor translates and interprets the word as 'fear' or 'anxiety'. However, I decided to search for more information about this kierkegaardian word on Google. It turned out that in English, it is usually translated and interpreted as 'spiritual trial'. All of these definitions are good, honestly. They help me to understand the philosophy of Kierkegaard. But I wonder if we should have a unified concept regarding 'anfægtelse' and what Kierkegaard could have thought about our interpretation of his Danish words.

Having a unified language would limit the extension of philosophy. By the way, what specific language are you referring to? English? Because it is obvious that the concepts differ in Greek, Portuguese or Spanish, and these languages have philosophical concepts which are unique in their vocabulary, etc.

@Noble Dust

Two nice ambient-music songs. :sparkle:

Sinéad O'connor about to sing Nothing Compares 2 U. Circa 1997:

The interesting thing to me is how different they seem at different ages. — Jamal

Exactly. In addition, when you read a novel again, some details which were hidden can be perceived, or you can read it with more confidence. I experienced this reading Kawabata. When I was a noob regarding Japanese culture, I was lost in the novels of this author. Later on, and after reaching respectable knowledge of Japanese culture, I started to have another sensation by rereading his books again.

Argentina has been good to me so far with fiction. — Jamal

Very nice! This book was on the shelves of my father's office because he loves Borges. So, I think you would like Sábato.

I read it in my teens; time for a reread. — Jamal

I love rereading books. It makes me feel a sweet nostalgic vibe.

Currently reading: The Tunnel, Ernesto Sábato. A classic of Argentine literature. A novel of gorgeous existentialism and a sense of despair.

This interesting news popped up on my desktop. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/best-places-to-live

If I am not wrong, I think Leeds was mentioned in the thread. Clerkenwell, Folkestone, Sherborne, Stirchley and Wivenhoe are also good options, according to that poll and data. I have never heard of these English cities but Leeds, which is in Yorkshire. What do you think about Yorkshire? @Punshhh

By the way, I was in one of the cities on the list: West End, Dundee (Scotland). I was there in 2018. I remember the weather was cloudy and rainy most of the time, but the city and the people were cool and chill. I can't remember why the hell I was there because I used to live in Edinburgh, but when I read about this Scottish city, some memories - which were kept in the memory - flourished again.

I am not interested in moving to England, but it is always interesting to read the opinion of others on what a city should be to live in, and why some are better than others. Is this subjective or objective? :chin:

Could I be happy in both Madrid and Leeds if I tried to? Does it depend on the city or the neighbors? Hmm...

Sexual stimuli is pretty natural though.

Anyway, you are claiming that sexual desire (doesn't matter the inclination) is a fictional convection. I disagree. We are 'created' to reproduce with each other, as much as the animals do. What did happen to sexuality is the weird eroticism which owes its origin to romanticism. Since then, we have started to conceive sex as an aesthetic act rather than the pure action of conceiving children.

The confusion you refer to arises because the TV and films show a way of sexuality which is not connected to reality. The filmmakers use sex because they know it is an easy attraction. Due to this number of sex scenes, we tend to consider that sex is fictional because we hardly experienced the sex we watch on TV. You mentioned dating, romance, etc. All of these are fictional, but not sex itself. Keep in mind that some people, to satisfy their sexual stimuli, pay money for sex.

I mean, what is fictional is the eroticism around sex. We are understanding this natural act wrongly. You cannot choose to experience or not experience sexuality. Otherwise, you will have a problem.

However the cow for this one comes from Poland. — Lionino

We no longer have national products because we don't have the capacity to hold millions and millions of tons of food. We ask bigger countries to produce them. The other day, I bought minced pork and the pig was from Hungary. This surprised me, because we have a lot of swine farming.

By the way, your dish looks delicious. I tend to eat the meat with fries, not rice.

I knew you would answer with that stupid prejudice. My fault for trying to discuss with you. I wrongly thought that maybe (only maybe) there are no prejudices at all, but yes there are...

OK. It is true. Each country has a lot of singularities, and when I wrote 'Mediterranean countries' I was basically referring to South European countries. Thus, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. As well as the East countries such as Albania or Bulgaria are usually named as the Balkans.

Anyway, you posted that as a fellow EU-member, you try to learn from other European fellows. This surprised me, because I don't know to what extent my country (Spain) can teach you 'something' regarding the working or student environment. Our youth unemployment and dropping out rates are very high.
I guess you were just thinking about other nations like Germany or France, and not a South European country precisely. :smile:

You are a liar. The real quote is:

You reject their possible existence because they do not have photons which are perceptible to our senses. — javi2541997

But you cropped it in the middle with the aim of showing that I was contradictory or nonsense. Our discussion is over. You are not honest.

The experience exists. — AmadeusD

Interesting. You can't experience death consciously. Does death exist?

You are twisting my quotes. Pretty bad. Please, read carefully what I answered to you. It is clear that I was referring to you about the non-receiver of the photons of ghosts. You cut and copy a quote which does not follow what I explained. Take it seriously, or it is enough for me to keep debating with you.

how do ghosts, or the photons they reflect, know what you believe? — flannel jesus

How does pepper know your taste? How does light know your vision? Etc.

Again, I think you are not trying to understand my argument because you focus on a pure scientific approach. As I already discussed with Manuel, it is not hard to believe in ghosts. They can exist in whatever we consider reality. Here is where the problem goes to. The concept of reality is different. You reject their possible existence because they do not have photons which are perceptible to our senses.

But, what if I say that I actually saw a ghost once. You will claim that I am a liar or a stupid head, but the ghost still exists in my world and reality. Why do I have to take into account the photons at all? Why does the ghost need to exist in your world to be proven? What if I can see ghosts, but you don't? Etc.

He's suggesting people who don't believe in ghosts can't see them, — flannel jesus

Yes, this is basically my point.

I reject the hypothesis that you can only see x if you believe in x. — flannel jesus

But we are not debating about x or a random subject... We are debating about ghosts, and I previously said that these entities are dependent upon us. That's why I claim that, whereas I can see a ghost because I believe in it, I doubt a non-believer will make the effort to believe that there can actually be a ghost in the corridor.

I understand your argument now.

You basically claim that if ghosts were real, they had to be visible or perceptible by human senses.

You are right, but you miss that humans can talk, dream, believe and hypothesise in matters non-perceptible by our senses.

For example, we usually have dreamlike experiences. Why would you debunk this just because they are not perceptible to our cortex? And for this reason, we sadly claim they are not real, they are just hallucinatory.
Are you sure that everything which our cortex perceives is 100 % real?

Yes, that's what I, more or less, I mean.

Apples can't be an example here, because these are already existing and living beings. I see an apple on the table and my mind just says, it is an apple. Thus, we have here an example of objective reality.

But it is different when we talk about ghosts, because they are dependent upon our perspective. Let's say we saw a ghost in the corridor. I believe in them, so it will not be a surprise to me. I guess you will consider the ghost a hallucination. OK. Then, we can both confirm that at least we saw something.

What about the ones who are not welcome to accept their existence? Would their senses allow them to see a ghost at all?

How could you know it's not a hallucination? — flannel jesus

so I don't assume everything reported is necessarily a hallucination. — Ciceronianus

This is one of the key points of the topic. At least, the people who claim ghosts are hallucinations, they confirm that they saw or experienced something, but they think it is not real.
Otherwise, there are people who never experience ghostly vibes because they take their non-existence for granted.

but it is curious to see how our beliefs entangle with our perception of reality. — Manuel

Interesting.

The existence or not of ghosts is subjective then. I wonder to what extent reality can be objective, but I am not very familiar with this field, so I don't have enough confidence to say what this happens.

What I can conclude is the following: (sorry, if this sounds stupid, or it doesn't follow).

(A). Ghosts exist because I believe in them.

(B) My reality is entangled with my beliefs.

(C) Ghosts exist in what I consider reality.

This is why I guess the existence of a ghost depends on the observer. We don't discover a way to prove their existence in a pure objective way. Don't we?

I believe in ghosts and spirits, even though I don't have evidence to prove their existence. It is just a belief, my belief. I think this is due to being raised by a Castilian family who are very superstitious. They are influenced by Catholic vibes and doctrines, so they fully believe that, apart from the body, there is a soul. Otherwise, they would feel devastated if they discovered there is no soul afterwards.

Believing in ghosts allows us to keep in touch and remember our loved ones. I don't want to think about them as a spooky thing. I usually feel their vibration when I walk in the graveyard in Toledo, where most of the members of my family are buried.

I think you explained, pretty well, Manuel. It is obvious that the ghosts of my family don't exist to you, but they do to me...
I now wonder if the ghosts of your family exist in your beliefs or reality.