Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not entirely wrong, of course. In a sense, you can call Christianity a "construct," in that it does indeed order one's worldview.

But that begs the most important question: Who "constructed" it?

Did men, in their devious ways, come up with it? Or was Christianity as plan "constructed" by God Himself? Which way was it?

Saying "It's a construct" won't answer that question, will it?

When I use the term 'construct' it is because I am inclined to a comparative religion orientation.

And all I can say is that "men in their devious ways" (to quote you) are the vehicles (lenses) through which whatever is brought into our world is brought into our world. They themselves both clarify and obfuscate.

The implication being that a 'clarified vessel' will impose less distortion. But distortion is inevitable, in my view.

Not all "constructs" are false, you know. The Scientific Method itself is a "construct." That is to say, it was a pattern of thought invented by a particular person (Francis Bacon) at a particular time (the 17th Century). It involved a voluntary narrowing of human attention to matters of material manipulation, and the exclusion from the field of view of such things as, say, "tradition," "received opinions," "non-testable theories," "metaphysics," and so on.

The methods of science developed out of a sense of need and necessity: descriptive systems that were more true, more precisely tied to accurate view.

Whereas previously the descriptions of Scholasticism were, seemingly, *all that was needed* to describe the phenomena of the world, this became insufficient and, it seems, those leading men because unsatisfied with the explanations offered.

But with that said it is hard for me to see the methods of science as a 'construct' similar to that of the constructs of metaphysics.

A *pattern of thought* can involve the narrowing you refer to, and indeed this is what happened, a narrowing of focus into the analysis of phenomena, but that is not in itself a 'construction' if it is seen as resisting, or disproving, a former interpretive construct that became insufficient.

So the methods of science, and the views that arise from them, seem to me more 'deconstructive'.

Yet 'scientism' can develop into a sort of pseudo- or imitation-metaphysics, but its 'explanations' cannot really operate as explanations.

[Lacewing]

Age, who are you quoting?

The people that think, say, or write that.

Only idiots waste their time countering arguments no one has made, like Mr Can.

Yes, idiots and/or liars -- as such requires that they misinterpret and/or distort what others are saying, so that they can then state their CORRECTION!

[Lacewing]

Does a person need to replace Christianity with something specific... or can it be that Christianity is just let go?

To answer such a broad question, and one so intimately bound up in Occidental categories -- indeed our *Occidental civilization* itself, would require a great deal of careful preamble.

What you seem to be asking, however, is Is it good, or necessary, for one solitary individual to 'let it go'.

But isn't the question you ask more or less a statement about what you yourself have done? How would you answer the question for another? How could you answer the question if (as I say) it pertains to Occidental civilization and Occidental categories of valuation?

I'm asking if it needs to be perceived in a certain way for anyone? How do we know that if we were suddenly faced with a realization -- individually or collectively -- that Christianity no longer worked or made sense for us -- how do we know that we wouldn't adapt amazingly well, and realize more truth and awareness beyond/without it? We can see how quickly humans (and their systems) evolve when they see and consider more information/awareness. The entire world throughout history has not been Christian, yet there have been values and great awareness around the entire world.

Much of 'public Christianity' today seems distorted and pretentious -- a banner that people/organizations fly to prove they're on the 'right side' so that others will vote for them and/or believe every absurd thing they say. It is a charade. Even Mr. Can who claims to be a 'true Christian' compared to 'so-called Christians', continually demonstrates actions that do not match his glorified words and imaging of himself. It's a farce... even if an unconscious or delusional one. We should be able to ask straight questions and get straight answers without the intoxicated self-serving distortions and childish story-telling. The fact that Christianity can turn people into such rabid false-bearers (in large numbers who claim they're on the 'right side') is alarming, is it not?

[Lacewing]

Is that bad? Do you think that what I've said and suggested is outrageous and disruptive? It seems sensible and useful to me. Is it possible to see how Christianity is outrageous and disruptive? Do convention and tradition get a 'free pass' to escape the same level of scrutiny that is applied to what is seen as radical thought?

I do not think that I would say that it was *bad*. Because things are what they are. Things happen. Some things get better and improve, some things deteriorate and get corrupt.

In order for you to make sense of my position you would have to understand that I do regard a large aspect of the Sixties (and radicalism, and also blind rebellion of a general sort) to have resulted in destructive outcomes. But I could not ever say that it was all bad.

But there is very little in life that is *all bad*. And there are often positive elements in generally bad situations or occurrences.

But what I can say is that after everything is said and done, and speaking specifically about the Sixties and all that transpired, that in the end it all has to be assessed -- that is, someone must assess it. There has to be some value-system that assesses it. And for there to be a value-system there has to be a recognition of how values come to be defined. How values come to be valued. And in this context, in our culture, I can say with a high degree of certainty that underneath all our valuations one will find the larger, Christian conversation.

So the way I see things -- this is my position, or my proposition -- that when that which produced our system of values and indeed underscores valuation is itself undermined, then in a slow decay the very notion of values is undermined. People do lose a grip on what is to be valued, and why it is to be valued.

All my arguments are based in an examination of causation. Nothing in our world simply arises out of nothing. There are long causal chains.

I see what you are saying, and I absolutely agree that there are positive elements that come from bad situations/occurrences.

Here's what comes to mind for me in regard to what you've said:

> Many 'Christian values' are based on human values which naturally exist, and can be evidenced elsewhere that is not Christian-based.

> The sixties were a backlash and a 'breaking through', perhaps much like what we're going through now. I see it as a natural 'unfolding' and 'dismantling' of the tangled constructs we've created and become blinded by. It's both ugly and glorified in that process -- and it is extreme -- but there is most likely to be greater awareness afterward.

> Values change and expand. I think it can be helpful (even necessary) to reassess and potentially let go of any structures that prevent broader understanding/flexibility of values. Values don't need to be rigid pillars that never change. Rather, they can grow along with the capability they support. They can evolve from shallow and narrowly-defined to immensely deep and broad. From static to dynamic. As humans can evolve to be also.

> I think humans are naturally capable in many ways and circumstances of operating on an 'in-tune' channel/frequency without following specific playbooks. So, our culture's incessant dependency on writing and following playbooks should be questioned, because it results in more controlling/manipulative behaviors and outcomes than in providing guidance for the natural human ability to discover/manifest what is greater than that.

[Immanuel Can]

Not entirely wrong, of course. In a sense, you can call Christianity a "construct," in that it does indeed order one's worldview.

But that begs the most important question: Who "constructed" it?

Did men, in their devious ways, come up with it? Or was Christianity as plan "constructed" by God Himself? Which way was it?

Saying "It's a construct" won't answer that question, will it?

When I use the term 'construct' it is because I am inclined to a comparative religion orientation.

Yes, I know that one well. It's when the Humanist metanarrative is seen to be the controlling one, and each "religion" is treated as some sub-phenomenon, a particular manifestation of the general human impulse to believe things...but I think you're a little different from that one, because you write:

And all I can say is that "men in their devious ways" (to quote you) are the vehicles (lenses) through which whatever is brought into our world is brought into our world. They themselves both clarify and obfuscate.

And interestingly, that seems to point to a belief in some ultimate source prior to the various "religions" being compared, something "brought into our world," as you put it, rather than merely generated among men. In that, you're different in your orientation from the "comparative religion" view usually is articulated.

The implication being that a 'clarified vessel' will impose less distortion. But distortion is inevitable, in my view.

That's probably right. There's no reason to insist that human epistemology is ever perfectly accurate to ontological reality. Some amount of "distortion" is just likely to be brought in with human recipients, isn't it?

But here's what we must ask ourselves: are all "distortions" so serious that they amount to full-on obscurance of the ontological reality behind it all, or are some "distortions" less serious, less obscuring, than others are?

We might also ask, can "distortions" be corrected for? Can one start out with a less-than-perfect view of the ontological reality, and get progressively better at seeing beyond the "distortions"? Or are all distortions just permanent and irremediable? (That latter would, of course, seem less likely, wouldn't it? We would need some reason to think the "distortions" were inherently permanent. After all, we can correct much about bad vision with eyeglasses; why would we assume it was simply impossible to correct vision of religious truth?)

Finally, we might ask, is there a starting point with sufficiently less "distortion," such that it would allow a person to get started in the vision-correcting process? Would there be a less-that-perfect realization that would still be adequate to allow an ordinary human being to start to become more aware and more accurate in his or her vision?

These are some questions that, it seems to me, hover around your description of the situation.

Not all "constructs" are false, you know. The Scientific Method itself is a "construct." That is to say, it was a pattern of thought invented by a particular person (Francis Bacon) at a particular time (the 17th Century). It involved a voluntary narrowing of human attention to matters of material manipulation, and the exclusion from the field of view of such things as, say, "tradition," "received opinions," "non-testable theories," "metaphysics," and so on.

The methods of science developed out of a sense of need and necessity:descriptive systems that were more true, more precisely tied to accurate view.

Well, certainly we had a "necessity" of that sort for a long while before we got the proper solution. It turns out that Bacon really did do something, something we simply did not have before, no matter that we had felt the "necessity" since ancient antiquity.

We had tried all kinds of stuff: tradition, witchcraft, astrology, guesses, superstition, intuition, magic, and so forth, as a way of getting a handle on the natural world. But none of that was yielding reliability. The Scientific Method really came in like a mental bomb. It didn't immediately eliminate all of that, but in the areas in which science's efficacy was inescapable -- that is, in the material world -- it simply overwhelmed the competition with such force that the various scientific and technological revolutions burst out on its heels.

And it wasn't just "description." All the old ways also were "descriptive" in some ways. It was a disciplined paradigm, a whole new way of addressing the material world and rendering it pliable to investigation. Moreover, it had within it the means of how to reject unhelpful "descriptions," in preference for those that would turn out to be true.

But Bacon began with a metaphysical postulate: namely, the assumption that the natural world was given to us by a rational, law-loving God, and thus we could expect it to respond to reason and to have laws and regularities we could test. That sort of confidence never came from, say, a polytheistic or non-Theistic worldview. Neither of them give us any reason to hypothesize that natural laws should exist, or any reason to believe that rationality should be able to unpack them. What polytheism teaches us to expect is an irrational world, where many spirits and demigods war idiosyncratically for power, and human beings are lesser beings caught in their strivings. What non-Theism teaches us to think is that the world is an accident...and accidents are, by definitions, things with no rules (i.e. not "on-purposes," but accidents), with no rules or laws, and in which everything is simply contingently and uniquely the way it is, however that may be. So if all we'd had are the polytheisistic or anti-Theistic religions, or Atheism, we would most probably never have had science at all.

This is why, for example, the more ancient, well-inhabited places in the world, such as China and India, did not discover science. They had their own ad hoc "technologies," to be sure, like gunpower or cloth-making; but only in a very limited way. They remained backward countries, in spite of the fact that we know they not only had many people but many highly intelligent people under their regimes. What they lacked, and what Western Europe, starting with Bacon, was able to have was the systematic methodology that allowed technologies and discoveries to be integrated and expanded through discipined hypothesizing and testing.

But with that said it is hard for me to see the methods of science as a 'construct' similar to that of the constructs of metaphysics.

Well, science's sine qua non is the material world. It cannot ever seem to do any more than peck around the edge of the metaphysical realities. That's science's limitation. But if we could find such a method for the metaphysical world, it would no doubt be a great boon to the progress of human knowledge -- ultimately, an even greater boon than the opening up of the material world thorough science.

But absent such a "metaphysical method," we shall still have to continue to deal with metaphysical realities. So some other approach is required. And since we human beings have no such mundane method on our side, we shall have to look for any unveiling of metaphysical realities to something first "breaking through" to us from the other side.

In other words, if man cannot find God, can God find man?

...the methods of science, and the views that arise from them, seem to me more 'deconstructive'.

In a sense, yes: scientific method is a means of "taking things apart" to describe the causal chain that produces them. But once we see the mechanics underlying a phenomenon, we can use that to construct things as well. That's how science led to invention. So science has a constructive element as well.

Yet 'scientism' can develop into a sort of pseudo- or imitation-metaphysics, but its 'explanations' cannot really operate as explanations.

Quite true.

"Scientism" is an assumption, an overly-enthusiastic pulling of all things "real" under the umbrella of material science, premised on an optimism that if material science worked for material things, it must work for metaphysical issues too, or else those issues themselves cannot be "real." So its explanations of metaphysical realities, when it has any to offer at all, are invariably reductional...and often insultingly simple.

So, for example, Scientistic people insist, gratuitiously and prior to all proof, that "mind" must end up being nothing but "brain." Or that "self" must end up being merely a collective term for "prior material causes." Or that "ethics" must either be some feature of the mechanics of reality, or some mere description of sociological convention, or (failing that, as it always does) must not be a real thing at all.

[Lacewing]

What are we building? What is our purpose? Does certainty have as much capability of limiting us as uncertainty?

Well, there you have brought out the question! It is the largest question that can be asked.

My view is that *the Culture Wars* have to do with essential questions of value and valuation.

And the things we are talking about here are definitely tied to and bound up in the Culture Wars.

So it is good to get the proper questions out in the open.

So, yes, the answers to my questions are different depending on the person/group who is answering them -- and that's my point: there is no single answer, nor is 'certainty' necessarily more true or useful than uncertainty.

Although some natural human values may weave throughout all kinds of cultures and timelines, human creativity and manifestations and explorations are countless. And perhaps it's important for us to not mistake the manifestation for the value, you know? We humans have a tendency of becoming very attached to our own culture, and thinking it is right/better as compared with others. But there are SO MANY possibilities to be explored, we may limit ourselves if we are certain of how it must be.

Uncertainty is not the same as being debilitated or directionless. Uncertainty can simply mean that one doesn't lock themselves into a particular pattern or structure or mindset, through which they operate for every situation or goal. We might instead be reasonably certain that we'll be able to deal with whatever unfolds. Or we might be reasonably certain that our intention will lead us to a useful path. Any new adventure we embark upon (which could actually be EVERY MOMENT ) can be filled with uncertainty. We could wake up tomorrow to a very different world for going forward. If we develop our ability to act in the moment, with what feels appropriate for that moment, as we aim for various destinations which may change, we don't need the same kind or amount of certainty that a person needs when they feel they must rely on that or that they're identified with that.

What I'm referring to is really just a different way of seeing and operating. Surely we can fathom that there is much more capability for humans than what we currently recognize and utilize for the most part?

And I think we have to be careful not to impose one culture on another. The world is for those who are born into it, to see what they can do. We can try to offer some 'good advice' and a stable world, but then we must trust that the next generation is going to imagine and create their own fantastic world (which may seem foreign to us). This is why I don't think 'old people' should be making all the rules for many generations to come. We may think we are offering our wisdom and rightness... but we are also limiting greater potential and awareness. Don't we want to be careful not to limit future humans to our ignorance and superstitions?

What if we ask: Why do we need to think we 'know' to the extent that we think we know? What is that about? Truly? Is it about building our identity and our purpose? Do we need that to feel validated? Do we need it to feel effective? Are we afraid or unsure how to function more freely in the world without our stories and validations? Maybe our capability has been limited/stunted by some previous generations? Can we imagine much more that humans might be capable of when they don't cling to archaic beliefs?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, I know that one well. It's when the Humanist metanarrative is seen to be the controlling one, and each "religion" is treated as some sub-phenomenon, a particular manifestation of the general human impulse to believe things...but I think you're a little different from that one [...]

But in fact I can't really be anything else, and that is because I am a product of modernity. It seems to me that once one is fully on the *outside* of a religious view, one perhaps instilled in earliest youth, or gotten (oooops, I must now correct this to *got*) by osmosis, one is substantially on the outside trying to look back in.

Sort of like people like Joseph Campbell (the Jungian school) trying to *re-enchant* the world from which the spirits, and the gods, had been exorcized. People under the influence of Jung, and Robert Bly, certainly made their best effort however.

And interestingly, that seems to point to a belief in some ultimate source prior to the various "religions" being compared, something "brought into our world," as you put it, rather than merely generated among men. In that, you're different in your orientation from the "comparative religion" view usually is articulated.

Yes, and that is why I do refer to 'in the beginning was the word'. But I simply cannot locate it -- as a possession -- exclusively in the Jewish/Christian world.

But recognizing and respecting hierarchies-of-value enables me to perceive that in the larger bulk of areas Christianity is at a higher level. But it took quite a number of years of direct study to prove to myself that this is true.

But this cannot be taken as meaning that I denigrate other religions necessarily.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Thanks Lacewing. I will be thinking about your posts and will respond soon.]

[Immanuel Can]

I am a product of modernity.

That's a strange claim. It's only slightly more plausible than me saying, "I am a product of Edwardianism".

By all accounts, Modernism has been rendered a "dead" worldview since possibly the mid '70s, if not earlier. And "Modernity," such as it was, has passed into either "postmodernity" or possibly "post-postmodernity." It seems a little odd for one to say, "I'm stuck in something that is not the present, and can't get out." I don't know what to make of such a claim.

It seems to me that once one is fully on the *outside* of a religious view, one perhaps instilled in earliest youth, or gotten (oooops, I must now correct this to *got*) by osmosis, one is substantially on the outside trying to look back in.

I think that getting "outside" of one's religious view is a very good thing. Then you can see it both from the inside and from the outside, and make a more reasoned judgment about it.

But whether one should be "in" or "out" surely depends on what one sees when one does, right?

And interestingly, that seems to point to a belief in some ultimate source prior to the various "religions" being compared, something "brought into our world," as you put it, rather than merely generated among men. In that, you're different in your orientation from the "comparative religion" view usually is articulated.

Yes, and that is why I do refer to 'in the beginning was the word'. But I simply cannot locate it -- as a possession -- exclusively in the Jewish/Christian world.

Okay, that's fair. It doesn't mean it's not there, of course; it just means that it's not obvious in the way one might have expected. Or, possibly, that one has been looking at the wrong "inside."

But recognizing and respecting hierarchies-of-value enables me to perceive that in the larger bulk of areas Christianity is at a higher level. But it took quite a number of years of direct study to prove to myself that this is true.

That's interesting. How did you come to that?

But this cannot be taken as meaning that I denigrate other religions necessarily.

I wasn't going to suggest it was; but so what if it were so?

I think there are certainly "religions" we can fairly "denigrate." I would not, for example, ever encourage somebody to be a Thugee, an Aztec or a Satanist. And I think that's a perfectly reasonable sort of "denigration."

And, on the flip side, if one has found an ideology or set of ideologies worth considering, then it implies that there are others that have been dismissed, or have dropped out-of-the-running, or have been judged inadequate, for some reason.

It's perfectly reasonable, for example, if one is (say) Rastafarian by conviction that one should also say, "I regard it as best, and realize it's incompatible with other systems, and for that reason, I am not a Zoroastrian, an Islamist or a Hindu." Any choice of a worldview, including the nominally 'inclusive' ones, eliminates all others. Fair enough.

[Sculptor]

What is Christianity for?

For the vast majority of people Xity has declined in their perview and interest makedly over the last 100 years. IN the early 20thC it was considered uncouth if you did not regularly attend church. There were even times long ago when it was compulsory and failure to attend was met with a fine or even imprisonment.
It would be a long post to try to unpack the history of Xity and church going in the West, but in short with the fragmentation following the Reformation and the sundering of the many cults of the Protestant the strangle hold over the lives of ordinary people was broken and belief and attendance became a matter of conscience not social and legal responsibility. THere also followed a fall in dogma, or at least a dispersal of dogma into a myriad of POVs. If you were able to escape the family bonds, or your local community, you had a choice which dogma to follow, but most significantly a choice to follow the dogma of none. Urbanisation had a massive effect on this. Land clearances, emigration, deruralisation all meant a fragmentation of the power of the church.

Atheism outweighs any belief in God in the UK. There is such vauge belief in a "spiritual power", but actual "God" is believed less than not.
https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html

Chruch attendance at an all time low is still dropping. Those that do attend, tend to restrict their attendance to birth, marriage and death with the odd appearance at a nice Xmas mass - for the Carols!!
Xity predict low with higher education and better standards of living. Attempts by Xity to be more relevant have made a few gains with the wailing Pentacostalists who seem to be gaining from the "trad" Prespetarians. With the Evangelicals making big gains in the US, but there is so much scandal and obvious quakery and downright immorality that this method is not likley to bring em back to the th "fold" in the UK.

How is Xity relavant? It just seems to be in its deathrows

[Belinda]

But Jesus reserved his greatest respect for the poor widow's mite .

He did.

But then, she had given Him, as He said, "from her poverty, ...all that she had to live on.”(Luke 21:4) Anyone who, in a similiar way, gives Him everything gets exactly the same high esteem, be she widow or not.

My point is that it is not such a big thing for me to thank God for my life as it is when somebody who is suffering thanks God for their life.

Of course I want to praise where praise is due but I won't praise someone who could have stopped atrocities and omitted to do so.

[Janoah]

Anything that requires an infinite chain of prerequisites (causes) never gets started.

The point is that also your hypothesis about the "first impulse" does not require "creation from nothing", on the contrary, the "first impulse" pushes the already existing matter.
(as in the Big Bang hypothesis).

But we're still stuck with the infinite regress of causes problem.

there can be different assumptions, such as moving in a circle, without beginning and end. And rumors about the "heat death of the universe", from the point of view of scientists, can be greatly exaggerated.
There will always be riddles in science. As in a woman
But in science, riddles cannot be explained by absurdities, otherwise there will be no science, but there will be an old wives' tale.
Therefore, you can indulge yourself with the absurdity about "creation from nothing", but let's not waste time proving riddles by absurdities.
What for

[Immanuel Can]

My point is that it is not such a big thing for me to thank God for my life as it is when somebody who is suffering thanks God for their life.

The opposite is also true.

They might have some cause -- or at least an understandable motivation -- to be tempted not to be quite as thankful as you, one might say.

Apparently, you say are not fortified with any such excuse: your life has gone well. Thank God.

[Immanuel Can]

The point is that also your hypothesis about the "first impulse" does not require "creation from nothing", on the contrary, the "first impulse" pushes the already existing matter.
(as in the Big Bang hypothesis).

But we're still stuck with the infinite regress of causes problem.

there can be different assumptions, such as moving in a circle, without beginning and end.

That's not a potential model of the universe, though. We can see that scientifically, and know it rationally and mathematically.

And rumors about the "heat death of the universe", from the point of view of scientists, can be greatly exaggerated.

I think it will never get so far. But I have to concede that if our universe lasts long enough, then what they predict is quite certain.

...the absurdity about "creation from nothing"

It's not actually "absurd" merely because one finds it difficult to get one's head around. In fact, that the universe had an origin, and that that origin cannot itself partake of a causal explanation is both scientifically and rationally certain.

[owl of Minerva]

owl of Minerva wrote.
“Not to mention to those who reveal it. In the Dark Ages it was a hazardous thing to do. Today it does not generally lead to personal harm. But once it is the the public domaine it can be turned into something quite other. But truth-sharers have to live with that and not take umbrage at distortion nor feel responsible for where, or what, their insights leads to.

Age wrote:
So, someone could say, for example, "They are taking over our country", which is the truth to that one, and so that one is just being, literally, 'a truth-sharer', but if this so-called "insight" leads to say, the taking over of the place where that country is run from by an angry mob, then the so-called "truth -sharer" does NOT have feel responsible for what their so-called "insights" lead to, correct?

owl of Minerva:

You are confusing fact with insight. A fact is something that is empirically true; by means of observation. An insight is an accurate and intuitive understanding of a situation. A scientist, who by thought experiments, has an insight that is rejected at first by the scientific community, as it appears too preposterous, but later turns out to be true, that is the meaning of insight. It is not in the public domain yet, a fact is.