User talk:ADM/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives[edit]

1 2 3

Speedy deletion nomination of Alice Day (pedophilia)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.    7   talk Δ |   05:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that the article has a fairly good chance of being kept. There are already many articles on Wikipedia about pedophilia. There is also a similar article called International BoyLove Day. ADM (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this your work? [1]   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that was someone else. You can check the IPs, they don't match, really. ADM (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009[edit]

Information.svg Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Alice Day (pedophilia). Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. A user with 10k edits should know that you can't remove a speedy tag from your own article.    7   talk Δ |   06:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were able to protest the speedy deletion templates in most if not all cases that do not constitute a kind of edit war. Anyways, I already said that I had the feeling that it would be a better idea to put a regular deletion template, because there are surely many people who would tolerate articles like this. ADM (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
What are you thinking? Neither article is sourced properly. What purpose is served by these two articles?   Will Beback  talk  08:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a widespread pedophile culture that has been documented by several researchers and that has even been debated in popular media. These pride celebrations are one distinctive feature of this sub-culture, which is in many ways simlar to the drug culture, i.e. the cocain culture or the heroin culture. Wikipedia is very liberal, ready to openly discuss these things, so I thought it would have no problem with things like this. ADM (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, I had not actually seen the entry Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Boylove Day, I simply did not notice it. Perhaps one day Wikipedia will allow these entries, because society is always evolving, but for now it is not time. But, as they say, we are not yet ready for these evolutions, which in time will surely come. ADM (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You should never create an article without reliable sources, regardless of any other consideration. Please go to DRV before recreating these articles.   Will Beback  talk  08:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism[edit]

Thanks - looking better! --Snowded TALK 04:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-naming category[edit]

Have been offline for awhile so I don't know where discussion stands.

Sex abuse cases of the Roman Catholic Church may not be quite the right name either, but the construct (broad subject followed by narrower subject) forces people to think of it logically (npov) rather than merely to assume the pov construct of the media.

IMO, if people are truly serious about the topic, and not just out to "get" the RC church, there should indeed be a "Sex abuse cases in China" etc. I agree that the name itself, may well need work, but the current title implies that abuse starts and stops with the church. Nothing could be further from reality.Student7 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Germanisation of Posen[edit]

Thank you for this interesting article. Please consider nominating it at T:TDYK, it deserves a front page exposure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations redirects[edit]

This is something I am not entirely sure about, although I am about 3/4 of the way through and sort of want to finish the job. I am trying to always copy the trivial stub "X Y relations" material into the "Foreign relations of X" page, so nothing is lost, before turning the stub into a redirect. Any editor who wants to expand on a relationship covered by a stub can easily revert the redirect and add content - a merge is not nearly as drastic as a delete. And a lot of editors have been wasting a huge amount of time repeating the same arguments in AfD debates about these trivial stubs when they could instead be improving articles, so cutting the number of stubs that are AfD candidates has to be an efficiency improvement.

In a sense, the merge gives a safe harbor for a topic that would otherwise have to face the blast of AfD discussion. I don't see any particular reason to delete these bilateral relations stubs, since they give minimal but verifiable information. On the other hand, the stubs I have merged are not notable (I leave any that have independent sources) so it is hard to defend keeping them. On the other hand again, I have merged some where I thought "this is silly - there has to be something to say about this relationship" - but then thought "easy enough for an editor who wants to expand to do so - it is just a merge, not a delete". And I have kept some where I thought "this is really silly - no way I am going to merge an article on this relationship, even if it is just a stub now". So I have been a bit subjective - although it is easy enough to revert any of the edits.

More basically, the goal is to improve Wikipedia. I like the student test: "would this be helpful to a high school student who had to write an essay on this subject, at least as a starter?". Yes, good. No, bad. On a lot of these debates about bilateral relations articles, we seem to have lost sight of this. The argument is between whether the relationship matters or not in the opinion of the editors, not whether the article gives useful information to the student. I think what I have been doing makes the "Foreign relations of" articles a bit better, although they are still quite biased and imbalanced, and don't think I am making content any harder to find. What do you think? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Substantialism[edit]

Hello ADM, with much agape and philia I do post this on your talkpage. I have repeatedly attempted to discuss with you. You do not seem to wish to be engaged but you have always initiated the dialect. User:LoveMonkey

Wikipedia is not a forum, so we can't really discuss anything in particular that is tangential to the encyclopedia. Although I do admire the philosophies of Aristotle and Aquinas, I'm not exactly a specialist in their writings, and so I probably couldn't explain their views in detail. ADM (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Our talkpages are to promote understanding and collaboration. Without discussion there is no collaboration and wiki is, means a collaborative effort. You deleted all my comments and are dodging and avoiding. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I did in fact try to respond to you, but my message was deleted after clicking the save page button due to a system glitch from the website. ADM (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In that response, I had written that traditional Western theology strongly refuses the gnostic or neo-platonic concept of demiurge, because God has fully revealed Himself, and does not have a hidden or secret aspect which would lead us to doubt in the fullness of His revelation. It also stresses the unitive character of love, as well as its total identification with the divine Being itself. Catholic theology also has a belief in Christ the King, which tends to oppose the christological notion of monarchianism. ADM (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ADM there are so many things wrong with your statement. Let me start with a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

"People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts."

God can not remain incomprehesible and be fully revealed. Again this is why people remained confused.[2] You are contridicting the saints and church East and West.[3] The word God means incomprehenisible in ousia. As the ousia it is a generic or general thing. I mean who as something created and finite can comprehend the infinite. Your contridicting St John Damascene, St John of the Cross, St John Climacus, St Dionysus the Areopagite to name just a few. This is a straw man ADM. Do not lay trenches but rather build bridges. To try and disregard the points made as being both for and against you are "poisoning the well". One way your doing that is by Subordinationism. And your doing it by claiming that Western theology is in history without gnostic (as you call it) and or Neoplatonic influence (by contrast and comparison). You have already removed my comments and edited what you liked and left to reflect something entirely different then my point. For is it that man knows life fully ever? No Randomness at all? All is known of life, all simply by living it? Fully revealed is a statement in need of qualification. Where does this come from? You appear to be playing syllogisms with Thomas Aquinas [4]. If this be so then did Aquinas obtain the beautification vision before he died? Didn't it make his summa into straw?

As in.................

However, before finishing his Summa Theologica, Aquinas reportedly experienced ecstatic visions, ceased all writing, and declared: “All that I have written seems to me like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me.” Some believe that, ironically, Aquinas himself experience the Beatific Vision on earth after arguing that it could only be experienced in Heaven.

I don't mean to recycle David Bradshaw [5] but your saying like Barlaam that Dionysus the Areopagite and John Climacus did not see the uncreated light of God in this life nor did any of the other ascetics............... LoveMonkey (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When I said fully revealed, I was thinking of the Chalcedonian Creed, where it says that Jesus is fully man and fully God. So, it means that everything is revealed in Christ, where there is total satisfaction in His saving grace. ADM (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
So God came into the world to save only the prostitutes, tax collectors and the depraved only the sick and not the righteous?? Matthew 9:10-13 :>) Ahhh you are now arguing from Hermeneutics! I believe in the Chalcedonian Creed and I always took the wording to not be the point you have. Since it doesn't say fully revealed. I take it that in God is Christ and not in another existence (say avatar) of another religion as "True God of True God". Phronema has in it's dynamus or potential that God being fully the Christian God in Christ does not in its declarations contradict the saints. Now let me say for the substance theory...There is energy, but to be English and Western and in respect of you. I will say action. As Bradshaw points out the meaning that the church fathers gave energeia and dunamis directly ties into the difference in understanding. For example a photon is an action it is the activity of light so which is the substance of light? Is it light or photon? Love is an immaterial action and is an activity of nous. What is the substance of spirit and can something of no physical substance have ousia or to be. The Church Fathers stated that yes things that are spiritual are real and in so doing reject nominalism. Things that are real do not have to be of a material substance (aka thoughts are real). This is sobornost so let us follow what is catholic so that we might find what there is to be agreeable for understanding.. [6]
I will compromise for the sake of understanding. Let us agree on Dunamis as variable (yes a nice Latin word is variabilis) or thingness. And energy as action, "to do". Hypostasis as a unique specific instance reconciled to the real as a concreteness as perseity (i.e. energies are not hypostatic per se). Ousia as a generalization. Yes I know this follows Bradshaw but it is very to the point on ousia and or substance or aseity. There we are now nicely Thomist well not really. But for the sake of understanding it is an entry point. Let us define nous as consciousness and therefore Sentient (yes another lovely Latin word). Pick these apart and let me know what you think (noesis). And I say this to keep from logomachy like the Sophists. As I am not a pagan mystic since I do not believe consciousness (called nous or demiurge) is evil or at least without purpose. As I am not a pagan philosopher (a philosopher in general) I do not believe that existence in it's completeness can be reconciled and controlled through human logic. So as a Byzantine I might say for understanding to a Westerner or Latin. Because God is both aseity and persiety his actions can not be a reflection of his aseity but rather a reflection of his perseity. And even this is incorrect. Because the substance of God is not a nonsentience it is superiour to ontology.
A rather stochastical and incorrect way would be- the Father as infinity is noumenon. Rather than God (as the pagans taught) be also the God's phenomenon of energy or motion, space, room. As freedom is an activity (an irrational activity which is denied by reason) of mankind but not a exclusive thing to man. Since energy can not be created or destroyed as Aristotle taught energy is the validation of the uncreated or supernatural. Energy is not and can not be caused. As I believe in energy I am not a scientist since I believe not all things have causes and or are caused. This is why science comes from logic and irrational-ism (but denies it). But this leads to the philosophical dilemmas of the old philosophical schools. One can exist with God and not assume. One can act in faith and grace and not dilemma or assume. Here is an academic way to say this.. [7][8]

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Catholic Church believes in mass–energy equivalence, like Einstein's formula, at least in spiritual terms. Meaning that energy can easily become an essence in itself, and that an essence can easily be equated as an energy. And this is true for God also. ADM (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah where all the pantheism is coming from. By superimposing over God the same rules of the created and the creature. But if God is uncreated (remember Angels are supernatural but not uncreated) your above logic insists that God is then caused or created for he is directly affected by the laws that define and govern what is created. This point aside. Let me clarify a very specific thing about my understanding of the equation E=MC2 and specifically matter or the conservation of mass. In that it says that Energy in it is an output not an equivent as you are implying here. As the Energy output in the equation is equal to the mass/volume of the object and it's interaction with a catalyst that causes the mass/volume or object to change material states (i.e. from a solid to a liquid to a gas to plasma). Where am I going wrong on this? Of course there is no 100% efficiency (entropy). So the substance does not equate to the energy in relativity in the same way Aquinas is implying. Because mass is a part of matter {substance} mass is not matter, as mass is weight and volume, weight caused by an energy like gravity. Photons for example don't have rest mass because they never rest, but they instead having moving mass. This is anymore then in quantum physicis. Energy is defined as not the equivalent to matter. Since matter acted upon or not acted upon remains matter. It only is matter in different forms or matter is still matter as in the States of matter. Einstein as far as I can tell never stated that his equation was taking matter and then changing it into energy since that would be breaking the laws of thermal dynamics. He was taking the mass of matter. Matter can only give up energy when it changes material states again nothing is created or destroyed only the change in the matter is exploited to harness energy. Or in another way rather his equations harnesses the energy output by the changing states of matter. So even with physics the distinction between substance (in this case matter) and energy is made and maintained and not lost. As Rock is matter but it is not an energy unless acted upon (inertia). So a rock's inertia is its mass but what is then it rockness that makes it a rock? Since the mass-energy equivalence formula requires closed systems. As each component of the equation of Einstein states that none of its distinctions go away or are destroyed or merge or absorb into one another. As saying that if I take a rock and convert it to energy all that is rock (matter) then converts into energy and therefore all the rockness in the world goes away {aka substance theory) As far as I know. Now when one splits the atom one is doing big separation of the electrons from the atom instead of onesies twoies like when you rub two magnets together. Since spliting the atom again does not "create" energy. This is very oversimplied and as such causes all kinds of dilemmas or anomalies.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Another similar concept is that light exhibits wave–particle duality, which includes both an essence and an energy. And so, since God is light, there can be no contradiction between His essence/energy. ADM (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah I use this as an example too. As that metaphysics from Aristotle has much to do with this. Now in another way Jesus Christ is God but so is light. Two distinct things but same in uncreatedness. And yet a very clear distinction still. As we should not say that God is matter. But then we are saying that exact thing, when we say God is energy and energy is matter. E=mc2 Subtle distinctions and still distinctions none the less. As science can only deal with the created or caused. Once it starts to deal with the uncreated or uncaused it's logic starts to fail or break down. Oh the great incompleteness of finite logic and language. Hence magic is not valid since is the gape closer in paganism for what faith does in Christianity. Or a Byzantine Christian will face the future with the comment "I do not know". Magic states it does know and does have control. And yet we are no more perfect now then we have ever been. For what is magic but the (false sense) of control over the supernatural and or the uncreateness. So an EO christian will say God is more then energy. God is more then matter. God is transcendent in essence and aseity. Immanent in his hypostasis and energies. As energy in science and EO theology is always the property of something else.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Theologians of the Catholic Church do agree with the fairly obvious statement that God is uncreated, they merely have a different view on the meaning of what divine grace is. According to Catholic doctrine, there are two chief kinds of grace, created grace and uncreated grace. [9] The uncreated grace is practically God himself, because it fully actualizes the johannic teaching that God is Love. ADM (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Substantialism (2)[edit]

Odd response to my previous post. But this is more then I have gotten response wise from you completely in the past. So I am grateful. Now if energy is a property of something else and can not stand on it's own (again the perseity of God). It makes the use of this idea above in a very strange way. You see there is a passage in the bible in Peter or rather 2 Peter 1:4. This means that all around us is uncreated or uncaused. And that we will interact with the uncaused or the uncreated. Note to interact is an expression of action of energy. In this case created or creature with uncreated or divine called synergy. It appears that the link you posted is trying to make this same clarification though in a most confused way. But then you can no have synergy without free will cooperation. And much in the West is confused on what is blashemy of the Holy Spirit. I think this comes of the confused and incorrect depiction and or viliifcation of synergy and theosis in the West. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it is possible to obtain grace without some kind of voluntary cooperation, even though it helps a lot when the cooperation is there. For instance, there are many unborn babies who may obtain a divine blessing if the mother requests it, or for the simple fact of having been conceived. This is because divine grace is a free gift from God and does not require an advanced human knowledge in order to happen. ADM (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh the agument of cognition and personality. God can work in degrees as God shares and reveals himself (God's realities are his immanence, his energies) this to the degree that one can comprehend him. This is why heaven and hell are different East and West. Babies and innocents being killed is a validation of Free will. Think of it this way. God does not stop people from doing bad things (in a temporial reality). We are creatures (limited) who can not see all of the consequences of our actions (the consequences of our sins). But God allows us to commit sin even if it is at the expense of innocents (temporially). Or to look at it a different way. Telsa validated that man can cause earthquakes. He created a small one of his own in NY. This is the validation of mechanical resonance. If man is a limited and incomplete creature who can cause earthquakes what else is he causing? Say out of blind ignornance? IF man can then what also might evil be able to do, short of creating ex -nhilio? There is no need for such an explaination as hase been given about babies and those who via unforunate circumstance where not given the option of free choice. Since the very energies of God are free. As God is incomprehensible in nature one knows God through faith not thru reason. A point of great confusion is the lack of clarity in the West of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and this as so clearly illustrated by your comments above. Randomness and sumbebekos can be logically explained only to the degree as Libnetz clarified that randomness is great complexity. A complexity that is unworkable. Mankind can not do this work with technology (to clear up a Telsa thing or two). Mankind can not see the world from God's perspective and will only hurt more and more as he tries to "in essence be God" as such.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea the the doctrine of free will necessarily gives us an automatic right to commit sin. Because that would mean that God literally allows us to break the ten commandments, such as the prohibition on murder and stealing. So, to suggest that God is allowing us to go against His divine will may in itself be a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. ADM (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

God gives free will. What I just posted can not stand by the logic of your above statement. The analogies of justice and court are just that analogies you using the word right and automatic make your statement a fallacy. As for Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. It is a choice to refuse the Holy Spirit to refuse the grace of God. The energies of God. It is God reaching out to us and us then taking the help and then being honest about it. For if we refuse the grace we are guilty of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Now this is unforgivable in that one who dies in this state is in the most wretch of states for this the rejection of life and existence that the devil himself has taken. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I do not think it is possible to accept the energies of God without accepting the essence of God. Because it would almost be schizopheric to accept one aspect of God while refusing another, one that is practically the same by the way . ADM (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes God's essence is incomprehesible and therefore we accept it on faith not logic. As life in its completeness is only partially comprehenisible to man (or man would then be the Father hypostasis). God's energies, activities are immanent but God in essence, being is not immanent but transcendent. Theosis treats God the Father not as another person per se but rather as person in a distinct individual existence as perseity with aseity. But God the Father as a sentience that is infinity and uncreated. Angels can not manifest themselves as uncreated, spirit and a singular man (as was explained to Arian). And each of these are not modes. Each of the hypostases of God are real in each of themselves, as is pointed out, God the Father, infinity did not die on the cross and stay dead for a time and then resurrect from the dead. Jesus Christ as the God we each know logos did that. As infinity can no stop being infinity to fit itself into a single man and or it would then stop being infinity.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with the heresies of patripassianism and theopaschism. Because Jesus is christologically known as Alpha and Omega, another name for infinity. ADM (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
God the Father, infinity did not die on the cross and stay dead for a time and then resurrect from the dead.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you don't believe that Jesus is infinite ? What do you think about Arianism and semi-Arianism, who teach similar views ? The Nicene term ousia means that Jesus is of the same divine substance as the Father, although he is not the same divine person. ADM (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Heaven is the degree each has of theosis. The degree of theosis is measured by how close one resembles the truth. The truth is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is both God and Man. The trinity is the tree of life. Each hypostasis of God is necessary for human consciousness (nous). Each being a critical component needed for mankind to have ontology or being. God the Father is infinity. God the Son is God the father as a man. God the Holy Spirit is the (life giving) Spirit of the Father (the infinite).

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus is the pre-existent Word, so it is in some ways incorrect to say that he is the Father as man. Because, according to Nicene teaching, Jesus has existed since the beginning of time, being light born of light, God born of God. ADM (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Jesus Christ and the Father are the same. If God the Father is not infinite then Jesus is not infinite. You have it backwards which is confusing. You are now saying that each hypostasis is in fact not unique. But rather the logos is a word of something not someone. As Word of God in essence rather then the man that is God the infinite in human form. You are denying that God that Father is a sentient being. For Jesus Christ is begotten not made. He is the word of the Father. By logic of the filique Jesus' father is the Holy Spirit. Which is again some more of the same Hermeneutics since the creed explains the role of the Holy Spirit which has been confused in the West. By filique this part of the creed is then heresy..
"and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;"
As then Jesus is incarnate of the Holy Spirit who is then incarnate of Jesus Christ..Doesn't really make it work, does it?

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I sense that you are teaching something close to monophysitism, or perhaps also monothelitism. Jesus has free will also, he does the will of the Father, but he is not the slave of the Father. In fact, the Father does the will of the Son too. Also, Jesus has a human nature that is unalike the Father or the Spirit. So Jesus is quite distinct on his own. ADM (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your analogy. First because I point out that Christ had free will you accuse me of Arianism and there the complete opposite of the erronious teaching you are now stating. Again Jesus Christ is God and Man. Unconfused and unmixed in natures. Both God and Man the bridge to restoration between uncreated and created. Man with free will and temptation. God in infinity son and word of the Father, incarnate of the Holy Spirit .

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Arianism can be very close to Monophysitism if you do not understand properly the doctrine of the two natures in the Chalcedonian Creed. The divine nature of Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, but not to the point of confusing itself with either Christ's humanity or the Father's divinity. ADM (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes as to why I stated "Unconfused and unmixed in natures. Both God and Man the bridge to restoration between uncreated and created. Man with free will and temptation. God in infinity son and word of the Father, incarnate of the Holy Spirit." LoveMonkey (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
That sounds just about right. I can't really find anything that is objectionable in that statement. ADM (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Good as catholic men should be brothers. It would be nice if we (EO) as catholics could have our president back. Or as you refer to him the Pope. Here is the substance theory as a point.
begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons),

Substantialism (3)[edit]

God is Father and Father is a being a hyperbeing. Not God in a something but God in as someone. Energy is property of something and not someone. Is the problem. Only God could truly have energies as a property per se. But then all distinctions have to be made for proper worship (Orthodox) of the God. We much love him as the God wishes to be loved. So that we can help ourselves.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Energy is a property of Love. And God is Love. So there. ADM (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
?? No.... Love is an energy of God. No God, no Energy. No person as God the Father, then no love as personal. Love then becomes a nonsentient force. Also how can God be light (energy, activity) and then also be the animator or life giving spirit. There has to be a distinction. Energy has to be the property of not just something, but someone. If not then Paganism is true as the would be the old atheists of paganism. Since Plotinus states that the Monad is a non-sentient force or power that will us to it (total unity). Rather then God the Father being true as one God in Father. Beyond energy, beyond being.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you do not feel that God is Love, then what is He ? If God was not Love, then he would not be God at all. Also, if this were the case, then Light would not be Light at all, and the Sun would practically not shine in daytime. ADM (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Again forgive me but this is very strange. In the East the substance of all things is different then God when one speaks of created things. So there is a created substance (matter) and then an uncreated "substance" as God is spirit. Love is an activity (energy) that while I can engage it I do not own it. So if I love is that love mine? Is it me? No per se. It remains as an activity of something else per se. So where is this original perseity of it????? It is the hypostases of God....The distinction are there as what is proper in interacting with the God, the tree of life, the Trinity. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Matter is not substance per se, it is just created material. We say this because we utterly reject pantheism. While mere natural matter possesses almost no substance, human life has a small part of it, while God has all of it. Therefore, much of the proper rendering of substance involves a dialogue of love between God and man. ADM (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah per se...What your saying does not resolve with the East nor with Antoine Lavoisier.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is too bad, really, because there is on one hand a schism between East and West, and another between East-West and Science. I think the East should try to dialogue with Science more than it already does, because it should try harder to present faith as something that could be intelligible to human reason, instead of maintaining a purely mystical attitude in its understanding of dogma. ADM (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I can appreciate this position, but I must disagree. Because knowledge of God is more important than science, as our salvation and reconcilation between the uncreated and created must take precedence over unity. This restoration is one person at a time and at the expense of the concept of individual and state. One must transcend individualism (asceticism) and reach personalism. One must transcend the world and its social structures (asceticism). Then there is person and intuition. God is the most important thing because only God transcends this as Jesus Christ. The war between the East and science is not as it is in the West. Much has been transplanted in the East and is not homegrown. The war between Science and religion is one of those conflicts. It was imported. As it was in China, just ask Tibet. As Comte Simon, Karl Marx and Alfred Richard Orage are neither from China nor Tibet.

LoveMonkey (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Substance theory and issues with mysticism[edit]

I must admit that I would like to engage in a more open approach to the potential negatives of mysticism in contrast to the philosophical approach. This ties directly into substance theory.. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything in particular that you would like to talk about ? ADM (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Substance as not a fallacy.[10] As the various most destructive and insanity inducing forms of mysticism trigger the idealogy that reality in the material world is a meaningless illusion. This is the cornerstone of pagan "mysticism". It was carried over into Christian Mysticism via individualism. As I do not agree with Augustine and his individualism, which is counter to the truth of the person in the East. It (individualism) has poisoned mysticism and caused much of the issues as is related to the Eastern and Western mind. Let me start by as simply as time allots a clarification of terms. Philosophy is that reason or dianoia is the highest faculity in man. Reason is higher then faith. Knowledge is a created thing from experience (I know kinda existentialist of me). One can not have knowledge without reason and vis versa. So an Eastern perspective one can not have faith or reason. One derives reason from faith. The West has it backwards. [11] The Russian resolution to Metaphysics (science, ontology) and gnosiology is in their introduction of stochastics or faith mathmatics if you will. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking of social constructionism ? Because that is the modern equivalent of saying that reality is an illusion. ADM (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh good point but no. I am thinking of how even the West has destroyed the concept of hypostasis. And replaced it with individualism. Think of it this way. The ultimate substance is God in Hyperbeing. If this be so. Should one pursue an understanding of God as a thing (philosophy) or as a person (fidelity or faith). God is. And the is of God is a existence a reality. But I can not get inside God and then see the world as God (henosis in contrast to theosis). As an understanding of substance applied to God could never give me such a thing anyway. Anymore then I can with you. So using the concept of individual means that I no longer respect the uniqueness of you as a person but now you as a non descript individual. The substance of man is person not individual. Because I do not perceive you from seeing through your eyes. I perceive people through my own eyes and see them as persons or existences of people each a unique reality. Individualism drives all kinds of craziness that the old men of the East were brutally against. There simply is no such thing ADM. Me strictly as individual drives androgeny and the idea that people are all one and the same thing as individual. Equal as individuals is not sane. We are persons to one another. Not individuals..

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this criticism to be somewhat unfair, at least towards many modern Western philosophers. For instance, the concept of noumenon or thing-in-itself plays an important part in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Also, it comes back in books from Schopenhauer such as The World as Will and Representation, which attempt to describe reality or existence as a coherent whole. ADM (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kant and German Neoidealism NOW YOUR TALKIN....Yes yes lets start with Kant. Let's Prussianize this....

Individualism drives all kinds of craziness that the old men of the East were brutally against. There simple is no such thing ADM. Me strictly as individual drives androgeny and the idea that people are all one and the same thing as individual. Equal as individuals is not sane. We are persons to one another. Not individuals..

Yes! We can resolve the substance of person in Leibnez' monadology and make everyone a "thing". Bad Augustine bad, [12][13] LoveMonkey (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To be Roman Catholic is to reject individualism as via the Catholic Encyclopedia online ADM..[14]
"The chief recognized forms of individualism are religious, ethical, and political. Religious individualism describes the attitude of those persons who refuse to subscribe to definite creeds, or to submit to any external religious authority. Such are those who call themselves freethinkers, and those who profess to believe in Christianity without giving their adhesion to any particular denomination. In a less extreme sense all Protestants are individualists in religion, inasmuch as they regard their individual interpretation of the Bible as the final authority. The Protestant who places the articles of faith adopted by his denomination before his own private interpretation of the teaching of Scripture is not, indeed, a thorough-going individualist, but neither is he a logical Protestant. On the other hand, Catholics accept the voice of the Church as the supreme authority, and therefore reject outright the principle of religious individualism."

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, most modern societies can be called individualist, and this is because of the free market ideology, and not any particular philosophical or religious doctrine. With regards to religious individualism, I would like to point out that there is a significant difference between the Catholic Augustine and the Protestant Augustine, or at least calvinistic interpretations of his teaching. The Catholic Augustine exalts the Church as the sole source of mediation between God and man, while the Protestant Augustine almost suppresses the Church and leaves only God and man. This is probably a major source of individualism in modern theology. ADM (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
As a catholic surely you must see that individualism is a denial of substance (person by definition meaning- substantive agent). Since I can not see individual I can only experience (vision, see, theoria) person or persons. My own experience can only organically relate back to physical reality if I then see myself not as an illusion (individual) but as a person which is part of a whole and a whole in itself. Heresy means to will or choose one's self over reality and God, reality and God not as they are but rather as we wish them to be. The embracing of illusion leads to the somnolency. If one embraces the illusion of the world and or the any forms of self illusion they provoke, the awake sleepness, as a state of consciousness. And until they ascetically remove the illusion from their consciousness, conscious reality will continue to seem like, a dream state or illusion. Once they remove their illusions (kill the old man or self) they are then organically reconnected to reality (born again). This is a universal (catholic) thing. This is what is meant by repair of the nous in the EO. Modern psychology is pop asceticism. And works for little stuff but not for big things and can't get to the massive damage to the soul (person) caused by illusions that then manifests as nihilism, drug addiction, sociopathic behavior, perversion, etc. etc. Individualism (pride, satanism) leads to a false sense of self and therefore undermines self control. It has the same end as various other illusions like duty (Kantianism) and society (the world). Loss of person, loss of self, loss of self control (hedonism).

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that I wanted to mention is that the Eucharist very much corresponds to the concept of substance in Catholic theology. The Church is substance and the Eucharist is substance. Therefore, the Eucharist is the Church and the Church is the Eucharist (cf Ecclesia de Eucharistia). And the Eucharist is Jesus and the Church is Jesus, both human and divine (cf Mystici Corporis Christi). ADM (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand this. There is a fight now in the East between the hesychast and the ecumenist. An example of this is in theoria being the highest and most valid of knowledge of God (heyschast i.e. V. Lossky, Nicholas Cabasilas) and the Eucharist being the most valid way to knowledge of God (Zizilious). The Eucharist is Jesus Christ it is the body of the community that has as its head not a priest or bishop or patriach (pope) but Christ. Christianity is not about some God (thing). Christianity is not about studying about some God. Christianity is not about talking about a God. Christianity is about reconciling and actually knowing the only God. Christianity is not about talking about some God that is not knowable. Christianity is about experiencing God, God in his immanence (Infinity, Spirit, and human being Jesus Christ) and accepting that we can never know the uncreated in being, but we can know God through his existences and realities which mean knowing God in and to the highest potential (dunamis)-2 Peter 1:4.
Heres the Gregory of Nyssa kicker. We can't know God in his completeness because he is infinite. But we are supposed to try (properly, Orthodox), that is what eternality is for, or Heaven if you will. We will never tap out or run out of a greater and greater beauty. Since God is infinite Beauty. Heaven is Being with God, forever without being encumbered by anything (with no end). Without some stupid set of human and fallen goals of being away from God (being onto ourselves). Rather one will each and uniquely, have being with the originator. Who will then originate for them beauty (art per se) forever. This is seeing inside the trinity, what is in the Trinity is pure kindness humility the purest Sophia (wisdom) but this energy is still not the originator's essence. Forgive my pun but you'll see (theoria), we all will see (theoria) just like death it is a foregone conclusion. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Creation is too limited to understand God's Uncreated Essence, so that's why we cannot explain about God's Essence (so we cannot claim that God is just an action, love), because we can never understand His Essence, Creation cannot ever become Uncreated, or in other words limited beings cannot become unlimited. Love is an action, an energy of God, through Theoria, we can see God's Light and feel His Love, obviously God's Love is Uncreated, unlimited. We can feel God's actions (energies, His love), but that doesn't mean we can understand his Uncreated Essence, we cannot ever know how God sees us or how He understands things, but we can feel His Love (his actions). God loves everyone, Heaven is being with God, the synergy between the created and the uncreated (when creation also loves God), since they love God and they feel His uncreated Love, their joy will become never ending, since God's love is uncreated. They will desire (from their own free will) to become closer and closer to God (but since God is Uncreated, Unlimited, this desire to love Him and become closer to Him, will never end), and they will abandon their selfish goals (if they don't love God, they won't be happy in the presence of God's Love). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Lets speak about fallacy. Mysticism has theory (theoria) as it's prime mover. But speculation due to individualism is a rust a rot a cancer if you will against pistis. This is a broken thing because the Orthodox or proper way is to focus on God (exclusively) and forget or lose yourself (sobornost). For the cornerstone of hesychasm (silencing oneself) is to silence one's self. I only find myself when I lose myself in someone else (say the Christ or the saints). Matthew 10:39 We are not absorbed into the God, we remain. Once created, creation can not be undone - per se. How so much destruction has been caused by bad apophaticism. As individualism spawns atheism and then nihilism which are nothing more then the lie that a religious person is a slave to a way of thinking. This is because the only slave (one who has not been set free) is the individualist, as they are nothing but a slave to their ego and their selves which is distorted opinion and thing based on individualism and not person. Individualism ends in insanity as the atheist then being skeptical loses the belief in themselves (as they can not trascend the duality, the dichotomy of "me against the world") and then slips into a belief in nothing. To embrace nihilism to say life and existence are meaningless. And this is what happened in Russia. Or course this was the inevitable result of the pagan egoists taking over. I mean many Orthodox Christians tried very hard at sobornost look at what Stravinsky did in his attempt at this via The Rites of Spring. And upside down star (bring Heaven down to Earth and man) means man is God and God is the highest potential of man not in theosis but in the beautification vision aka henosis. Man becomes the non sentient force that is the monad (dunamis), the nothingness before being remade into a part of the cosmos again via eternal reoccurance. Demiurge is a pagan concept saying that to believe the creator God is more important that other any god, is a delusion. It is the reduction of god into Creator as a mechanical role that is lower to or secondary to the good, indeterminate force, matter that creates-triggers reality in the mind. To worship a function of the brain. The pagans attacked this and that attack, refutation is what is called pagan (apophaticism) mysticism. It states that man has all the answers in himself already and is a god (is god) and does not need an external objective God. He should submit to his own will rather then to the will of a false or "sky bully" God of the Jews. This stuff was why the Orthodox called Nazism "pagan".LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Substance as person, person meaning substantive agent[edit]

Lets try and define the Russian answer to German Neo-Idealism in "All is immanent in all". LoveMonkey (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about the theory of personalism, which was promoted by Emmanuel Mounier in the 1930s. ADM (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Man I like this Social constructionism stuff. As for personalism it is in the East too long before Emmanuel Mounier. I added it to the hypostasis article individual existence (tropos hyparxeos which is a compromise) and it keeps getting edit warred, removed. But what your saying is in the right direction -per se. Social constructionism (lol) is back to the old ideas of idealism..Plotinus did it better. As for European personalism it is incomplete, but leave it to a slav to finally try to express it (the truth) lol, I think Pope John Paul II was a very good man and a wonderful person with a good heart. But substance is rational and irrational. Existence is personal and intuitive. Or intuitive - personalism. Because God is immanent (in the Universe) and transcendent (also greater then the Universe). Complimentary in distinction not duality as to confront or to separate. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Substance is a proof of what is complete to the senses (a creature perceiving the created). Both from the external and internal point of perception (nous). This unitied perception is called person. Spirit (nous) + Body = soul (aka person, creature, created being). Through the concept of Russian Panpsychism which is used to transcend the mind/body duality, via the concept that, gnosiologically speaking, the body (due to the conservation of energy- per se) and spirit, mind (nous) are both energy and the material world via sense perception is energy. Note here the clear distinction as Palamas has insisted on it- Energy is only energy when it is being a property of something so for understanding,,, this distinction has to be made. The link between body and mind are that they as activity and action, each energy (activity, action) being a property of it's dunamis (unique potential, power, force) is that which distinguishes them (yes Plotinus i.e. Neoplatonism). Only in their energies' potential (dunamis) are they given specific or uniqueness. This dunamis causes the illusion of self as individual. Rather than Reality as a complete Organic whole and that the person only has substance (substantive agent) and meaning when that person is a part of something. Meaning that the soul, if apart from both (not one or the other) material and spiritual world, can have no meaning or substance. Soul means nothing without both spiritual and physical existence. Therefore "all is immanent in all". All has meaning, existence when interacting with all. To look at it in an anti-pagan way. One has to have a variable (dunamis as a vacant place) before they can have an activity or action (energy) i.e. Plotinus and Neoplatonism. In Aristotle activity (energy) makes the place (dunamis, motion, variable) that one has action in. In Orthodox Christianity God is no such worldy or created idea (ideas) in his essence.
Things can not have value or existence outside of reality they can only "exist" when part of the organic whole called reality. As each existence, person of God has hyperbeing they do not share their origin in one another (the anti-filique of the EO and the Orient Orthodox). If they did then what we call God is nothing but a nonsentient substance shared between three sentient modes of it's existence (aka Plotinus' Neoplatonism). Their origin is infinite or infinity which we call Father the has no origin which is what makes the existence of God, the Father, infinite. The father as infinity is not a thing or substance (ousia), rather the Father, is sentient existent God. As Holy Spirit is sentient existent spirit of Infinity. The persons of God are each a existence of God where as created persons or creatures are modes, prototypes. Creatures are in substance dependent upon something else and not self sufficient (individual). This causes the incompleteness or limitedness of perception. Only God is individual and only because God is a single God (in Father) who has as his essence and substance - individual, Which shows just how short sighted the idea of being God in essence as individual is. To try and be God (individual self sufficient) is the pride of the devil. Since this can not be obtained it causes the vilification of God. Mankind is here in a temporial person state, prototyping out every potential to show the misery of trying to be God as much as the each seeks to be an "individual", individual as an absolute (apart outside of) statement. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Substance of the person as emergent or panpsychic[edit]

In the Russian philosophy of Lossky, panpsychism plays a role different then Western panpsychicism. Though there are various arguments very close to the role that person plays. Lossky resolved the issue of accidental (sumbebekos) emergent of things via the concept of intuitivism or that the organic whole is so complex that the person can not perceive it all at once and an attempt to try will induce madness. Therefore one deals with complexity and it's manifestation the accidental (sumbebekos), the random, by intuition (in the East faith makes reason, were in the West reason makes faith). I hope my oversimplication of all this has not completely misrepresented it. As the generator of reality (hyperbeing or God) is sentient and that the uncreated energy that manifests as phenomona has a degree of consciousness based strictly upon the amount of energy it possesses (the amount of activity it can engage, allots and is a reflection of it's own (property) amount of consciousness - nous). LoveMonkey (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust[edit]

I like the approach you've taken to this article, starting with the current material and laying the groundwork for expansion. I hope to see more from you in this area. Savidan 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of X Committee[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article X Committee, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No secondary sources, Notability tag since May, Orphan tag since February. Even if more notable would be better merged into the catch-all Views of Lyndon LaRouche.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the "X Committee" material is that there are no secondary sources referencing it. LaRouche has a million ideas, but unless they've been reported in secondary sources then there's no indication that they're notable. The Views of Lyndon LaRouche article has been a dumping ground for merging in articles on some of these minor ideas. That's kept clutter off the overall encyclopedia, but it's resulted in an incoherent and poorly sourced article. If there are any secondary sources available for this material then please add them. If none can be found I'll delete the section and the redirect.   Will Beback  talk  17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading about it in a fairly obscure French-language newsletter. [15] There are also various second-hand sources in English that talk about a similar organization. [16] [17] [18] ADM (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The last two sources are apparently discussing an entirely different group. Rense is obiviousl not an acceptable source. The obscure French newspaper is borderline. I'm also disappointed that you wrote the material without any sense of neutrality - there was no question of the existence of the supposed committee and it was largely written in the passive voice. Further, you simply copied and pasted some of the text, which is really bad form. I don't think the merger was necessarily a good idea. Let's revert it, and see if the article can survive AFD on its own.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I moved the modified material back to the original title, and nominated it for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X Committee. If you think those additional sources are up to Wikipedia standards then you might want to add them.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)