Oh, sorry. It wasn't intended to be.What a snarky statement.
You use the word "modern" often but I don't think you ever clarified what you meant by it. (Or maybe I missed the posts where you did.)
Oh, sorry. It wasn't intended to be.What a snarky statement.
You tell me how I should classify you. I consider that your responsibility. If I misread or misinterpret, provide the correction.
And if I tell you to relax and lighten up how will that be received?I have made some broad stroke descriptions, but you can simply tell me about whatever it is without guessing at my reactions or including me in a group.
At the risk of offending you (I hope you will choose not to be offended) my impression so far is that you have a shallow understanding of Catholicism. I cannot blame you though. You offer views and interpretations that are extremely common — the typical complaints. My opinion is that you need — meaning we all need — to see beyond those superficialities.I've been reacting to Christianity and Catholicism in post after post.
LOL!I described myself as pagan animist.
We’d have to flesh this out but my assertion is that no, they most certainly do not. And the fall away from the spiritual personalism that gave life to love (in the sense I used the word) results in a broad debasement. (But don’t think I hold myself as a paragon please).In the broad sense no, but again moderns and secular non-theists in the West have very similar ideas about what is love and what is guilt to many Christians. Even down to the expression of emotions.
Just pass over it. Don’t get hung up on it.But you don't need to know this to write about your thoughts or what Dawson or any of the others you mention are saying. You could say moderns, instead of we moderns. And you don't need to tell me that I will have trouble believing X. You can just tell me about X and let me have whatever reactions I have. I can bring them up if necessary.
A few years back I introduced myself to Pascendi. It is a difficult read. But the exact definition of •modern• as used by Pius X, which is very specific, I absorbed on some level, but only this AM did I remember those discussion videos and listened again, and was reminded.
Interesting video. Mishima is an intense character and his resoluteness is often cited by the dissident right (like at Counter-Currents).Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:16 pm A little bit of 'Eastern' wisdom on why Nihilism takes grip on Anglo-Protestant Western Civilization and "MUH Democracy!!!"
What are these "Catholic fundamentals" - could you provide a list?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:11 am I should mention that my present review of Catholic fundamentals has come to the fore because of my encounters with so many atheist types who write on this form. And I should also mention IC who had been a powerful negative influence that severely affected my appreciation of Christianity. I had to confront these people on an inner level to then (attempt to) transcend their limitations and •errors•. I’m not yet through it. It is a very difficult problem to resolve.
Hereattofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 3:36 am What are these "Catholic fundamentals" - could you provide a list?
I expected that.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 3:49 amHereattofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 3:36 am What are these "Catholic fundamentals" - could you provide a list?
Again, you don't need to classify me. You can describe where you stand which was what you said you were doing. Really, it would have been so easy for you to say: oh, ok, I won't make any more assumptions about you. You'll see below what this can lead to.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 10:55 pm You tell me how I should classify you. I consider that your responsibility. If I misread or misinterpret, provide the correction.
Nah, not really. But here's the thing. You don't need to tell me this orThe opinions you have about Christianity and Catholicism are more or less precisely those of many or most people.
or this. I get that you are saying this is not intended as condescending, but it assumes a lot about me, and it's not necessary. You say...I understand all of them because, naturally, I’ve thought the same thoughts. — until I researched the matter in more depth. And then, in my case, everything changed.
That doesn't require guessing that you've had all of my thoughts and then went on and did more research. Mull over how that sounds and then couple it with what you say your goal is. Really, it can be left out.That is my own primary objective: to get clear about where I stand.
Well, we'll find out if you say it.And if I tell you to relax and lighten up how will that be received?
I've been reacting to Christianity and Catholicism in post after post.
If that is the case why did you say....At the risk of offending you (I hope you will choose not to be offended) my impression so far is that you have a shallow understanding of Catholicism.
I'm actually reading what you write.I have very little idea as to how you view Christianity or anything else until you write it out here.
Yes, so you've said. At the same very abstract level, without presenting in any way how. If you don't intereaction with something - in this case my views critical of Christianity - then you don't understand it. That might be a takeaway less - actually interaction with things rather than classifying at a distance. Might help with your modern distance from Christianity also.I cannot blame you though. You offer views and interpretations that are extremely common — the typical complaints. My opinion is that you need — meaning we all need — to see beyond those superficialities.
Yes, it seems you classify yourself as modern and so when you encounter someone who has some thoughts you've had, you assume they are where you were in the past, before you did your deeper research. You know them and since you were superficial, they are. Despite the fact that none of this actually help you with the project you said you have - workiing your way of this yourself and becoming clear on your position, you continuously make flat statement about me and presumably other interlocutors that aren't grounded, nor are they relevant to you coming to where you want to be. Mind reading and projection won't help you with that. And note, not because I know who you are or what you are, but because you're human. Those presumptions aren't steps towards your extricating yourself from being a modern and actually immersing yourself in Christian metaphysics.And as I write here (and live and breathe) that is what I am trying to do — and exclusively for myself. You must understand this.
I am starting to see what you mean, that you are modern. Up in your head. Unable to see others other than cognitively. Making a lot of assumptions. I can see why Christian metaphysics eludes you.So yes, you’ve reacted typically in post after post — and I see that you do not grasp the essence of it (Catholicism) in the most important senses. And that is absolutely fine! I am not trying to convince you. Though I can offer some interesting resources.
I described myself as pagan animist.
Really? How odd. I would think it might lead to a dash of caution about referring to me as modern. It might also lead to caution about assuming that you have had all my thoughts already. I actually wondered when I read your recent posts if you thought I was another poster.LOL!
It is a meaningless description until it is fleshed out.
At least to me. I did look up a few standard definitions. Does your cellphone have a distinct spirit in it? Your car? (These are feeble attempts at humor).
IN a thread on the topic of Christian Civilization? In a thread where your goal is to get yourself away from being a modern, stuck in his head, not able to really take seriously the metaphysics that he thinks we all should?In all seriousness please tell me more.
In the broad sense no, but again moderns and secular non-theists in the West have very similar ideas about what is love and what is guilt to many Christians. Even down to the expression of emotions.
Then how would you know? My reaction is that you yourself don't really get Christian metaphysics, including about love. And yet your consider yourself in a position to judge others, based on that view. That doesn't make very much sense. I think you actually have less understanding of Christianity than I do for a couple of reasons. 1) I was Christian as a child, and quite a serious little believer and 2) because your head is modern - in the problematic sense you mean by that term. You don't know what it is to be immersed in beliefs outside the secular world. You may have had some experiences, here and there, but you're up in your head. You're a cognitive Christian who doesn't really believe in the tenets of something you think are critical for us all to believe. This is me finally starting to believe how you describe yourself.We’d have to flesh this out but my assertion is that no, they most certainly do not. And the fall away from the spiritual personalism that gave life to love (in the sense I used the word) results in a broad debasement. (But don’t think I hold myself as a paragon please).
But you don't need to know this to write about your thoughts or what Dawson or any of the others you mention are saying. You could say moderns, instead of we moderns. And you don't need to tell me that I will have trouble believing X. You can just tell me about X and let me have whatever reactions I have. I can bring them up if necessary.
Just pass over my reaction. Don't get hung up on it.Just pass over it. Don’t get hung up on it.
You said more than this and more specifically assuming things about me. The first reference 'we moderns' you'll not I reacted 'If this wasn't meant to include me, peachy'. IOW it was ambiguous, so I just made a note about it. But from there you were clearly speaking about me as an individual.I do say •we moderns•. Because I am making reference to our cultural situation, and our civilization's situation. You are incidental.
So Y don't you believe in Christ NE more?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 4:46 am 1) I was Christian as a child, and quite a serious little believer..
Christianity is THE most pro_found religion upon the planet.Iwannaplato wrote:And don't worry, none of what you do in relation to other people could possibly be connected to why you're a modern, up in your head about Christianity. I mean, it's not like on some very profound level it's an interpersonal religion at every level.....oh wait......
I'm not a Christian anymore. My views on Christ are complicated and likely unlike Christian views.
I suspect a lack of magnesium in my diet.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 3:58 am Why are you finding Christianity more complex than the simple belief in the life of Christ rendering one a Christian?
So drop it and talk about the subject of the thread.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:59 pm It got too weird for me Iwannaplato. I have no idea how to respond to all of that last post.
Perfect.phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 1:04 pmSo drop it and talk about the subject of the thread.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:59 pm It got too weird for me Iwannaplato. I have no idea how to respond to all of that last post.