Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:10 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:03 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:00 pm

And probably separate beds...and houses... :D

Well that has been one of my experiences anyway, with a certain boyfriend, not married to him.
I was married: it's one life, two people.

It's fidelity.
I agree, but both partners have to want the same fidelity for their marriage to last a life time...
What, EXACTLY, is 'fidelity' if there can be OTHER 'fidelity'?
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:10 pm the father of my children left us all, he wasn't as committed to fildelity the way I was....
How did the father of your children, which implies the SAME father to your children, (of which for some reason I think there are four), left 'you' ALL, and NOT have 'been there', for 'them', previously?

You did, after all, CLAIM that 'your' children ONLY had you to care for them their ENTIRE lives, right up until they were adult enough to care for themselves.
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:10 pm but I'm in a much better place now because of his leaving, funny how that works as well..it's another form of love...loving yourself.
YET 'you' STILL maintain the PERCEPTION that "he" left 'you'.

Your ACTUAL words SHOW and REVEAL more than 'you' YET REALIZE. This, by the way, goes for ALL of 'us' and NOT just 'you' here "dontaskme".
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:28 pm The topic of the failure of the marriage relationship is an interesting one. I think it fair to say that the breakdown in, say, the success of marriage goes along with various other breakdowns which seem, definitely, to be related to the breakdown in the *belief in* the general structure of Christian ethics, but moreover metaphysics.
LOL

What, EXACTLY, is the 'general structure of "christian" ethics'.

And, the MAIN REASON for the 'breakdown' of the signed, legal "marriage" is usually because of the LIES and DECEPTION that lays behind that kind of 'marriage'. Which, by the way, is A "marriage" that has just about NOTHING AT ALL to do with what 'marriage' in biblical, or God, terms refers to.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:44 pm Well, you may think that love of God cannot possibly have anything to do with the kind of love you're talking about; but it can. What it does, is it takes the unreasonable element out of our expectations. The only truly durable, totally committed love, is the one we receive from God; this frees us up, in our aspirations, to love the fallible human being in front of us, without demanding that he provide for us that committed, total love that only God can actually provide. It makes us reasonable, sensible, fair...and committed, because our oath is not to ourselves or our own feelings, nor to our partner, nor even to the crowd on hand at the wedding -- it's an oath to God, between him and me, regardless of all the other things. And thus, the kind of total commitment required to make love durable becomes possible to me. And it's the change in me, not my partner, that's most important. For each person can only commit himself/herself...you cannot make another person committed.
The topic of the failure of the marriage relationship is an interesting one. I think it fair to say that the breakdown in, say, the success of marriage goes along with various other breakdowns which seem, definitely, to be related to the breakdown in the *belief in* the general structure of Christian ethics, but moreover metaphysics.
That's astute, I think.
Maybe this is obvious for many, but maybe it is not so obvious to some?
Quite so. The most important thing one can have in loving somebody long-term is the settled conviction that they are especially committed to the values one holds oneself...values in which one believes passionately, whatever else may come.
So, to 'you', "immanuel can", the MOST IMPORTANT thing you can have in loving some "body", long-term, is the 'settled conviction' that the "other" are 'especially committed' to the values you hold "yourself". Which, besides the Fact is a Truly 'self-centered' view of 'things', is just a typical result of one who has been CONNED by the 'religion' in which they FOLLOW, TRUST, and put ALL of their FAITH IN. People like 'you', "immanuel can", have been so FOOLED and CONNED that 'you' ACTUAL BELIEVE that ANY one worthy of 'you' and/or 'your' time SHOULD be FOCUSED on 'you' ALONE and only DO what 'you' "yourself" do.

Which is Truly LAUGHABLE.

Especially considering the Fact that for 'you' to love a Truly innocent new born child, you EXPECT that they are especially committed to the values that 'you' HOLD "yourself". Which, if it is was NOT so funny because of just how much you have been TRICKED, FOOLED, and CONNED, is TOTALLY so DISHEARTENING to think that people like 'you' ACTUALLY EXISTED "immanuel can", in 'the olden days'.

There is NO wonder that life became so WRETCHED, as it was in the days when this was being written, when children HAD to grow up with adults who were like you. Children would just NATURALLY become so WRETCHED, "themselves", 'having to' endure such a HARD 'life' as 'you' would have, OBVOUSLY, HAD TO "immanuel can" to become such a WRETCHED adult human being as you OBVIOUSLY HAVE and are SHOWING and PROVING here.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pm Then, one can admire their convictions and remember what they are about, even when one is annoyed with their person, and then one can get through it.

But we have been told that the highest value is something like "our own happiness."
When, and IF, one FINDS out who and what thee True Self REALLY IS, EXACTLY, then 'our OWN happiness' makes PERFECT SENSE, is PERFECTLY REASONABLE, and is Truly UNDERSTANDABLE. In fact, it should ACTUALLY be EXPECTED.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pm And nobody is anywhere near so committed to that goal as we are. Moreover, it's actually a shallow, selfish goal, unworthy of the kind of belief and commitment of which a human is capable. So short-term self-centered values like that will just not do.
LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how little these human beings ACTUALLY KNEW in relation to who they Truly WERE.

And just how much a lifetime of LIES and DECEPTION has INFILTRATED 'them' can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout these posts here, in this forum.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pm
If a relationship -- the man-woman relationship, with family-life as the object of it, and the raising up of children within value-structures -- is undermined, one has to ask why it is undermined. That undermining has a function.
Oh yes...especially today.
WHY "especially today" one 'has to' ask WHY is 'it' undermined and/or the undermining has a function? WHY NOT at ANY other time throughout human history?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmAnd today there's a special reason for hating marriage among the Neo-Marxists. It's that the destruction of the nuclear family and the scrambling of sex roles leaves a populace angry, adrift, permanently unhappy and alienated -- in short, the perfect lumpenproletariat revolutionaries. So no wonder today's Left is so hateful about marriage and sex roles, and calls them "oppressive." They shore up social stability and the social fabric, and make people content. Neo-Marxists do not want that.
Here we have A PRIME EXAMPLE of one who has been so Truly FOOLED to BELIEVE that their "own" BELIEFS are the BEST and TRUEST ones.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pm
It should be pretty obvious that most people have whole other sets of criteria as to why they are with any other person at all. *Serial monogamy* has become a norm in this situation. You find someone to be with for a rather short period of time, but for reasons of pleasure and enjoyment on the whole, not because you were joined in marriage to then produce children with whom all together some sort of interconnected, civil-sacred life is lived. That entire function has been wiped away for many and perhaps for most.
Yep. I'm with you.
Yes this is VERY True.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pm
For 'love to become durable' the entire reason why people even get into marriages has to be reexamined. "Why even bother?" say many. And there is a good deal of sense in this when the actual situation is seen.
No wonder we're seeing a plague of abandoned women and fatherless children. We've told everybody it doesn't matter what kind of "family" you have.
WHY do 'you' tell EVERY body this "immanuel can"?

And, what does, "It doesn't matter what kind of "family" you have", even mean?

When 'you' TELL people this, what do you mean and are referring to, EXACTLY?

Also, what would, " For 'love to become durable' " even mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

What does the word 'love' even mean or refer to, to 'you', people, EXACTLY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmAnd men are, to use their terms, "going their own way" because they've been told they're worthless, deadbeat oppressors anyway.
Ah, is that the ONLY reason WHY?

Also, WHY do 'you' consider some people to be worthless' and/or "deadbeat oppressors"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmWho would want to join oneself permanently with a definition like that?
The there is what Johnny Cash said: "The secret of a happy marriage? Separate bathrooms".
Johnny is "on the spot" with that comment. :D My wife and I don't have separate bathrooms...but two sinks...well, I don't know how a marriage can survive without them.

Well, that, and a coffee maker.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15193
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:28 am So, to 'you', "immanuel can",
Nobody's listening to you, "Age." You should figure that out.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:32 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm Having said that, I've never shied away from hard work and total commitment toward relationships in my life, like the ones I've had with my own children whom I raised single handedly with total unconditional love, and commitment without flailing or flinching away from the huge responsibilty, which I accepted was all mine since I was the one who wanted to bring them into existence.
I wasn't raised by a single mother, but my best friend was. His father died at around 45, of a sudden heart attack. And for me, his mother became my second mother. I was so often in their house I became a surrogate son.

She was a woman of huge courage and integrity.
WHY, EXACTLY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmAnd she worked harder than anyone I can imagine to raise four children...two of each. She was a heroine, in my eyes. I can't say enough about her. I would even say that a large part of what I am today was due to her.
HOW did she, supposedly, "work harder" than ANY one, that you COULD IMAGINE?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmBut if she had ever had one wish, I know what it would have been...her husband back. No question.
Did you EVER ask "her" and CLARIFY this? Or, is this just your ASSUMPTION, ONLY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pm For however hard one works as a single mother, it's a brutal task...
WHY, EXACTLY, and HOW, EXACTLY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmand no woman is a man, just as no man is a woman. So there's a lot that just cannot be compensated for, no matter how nobly one tries.
Will you provide ANY examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmToday, people mock the nuclear family.
Do they? WHY? What was Wrong with the so-called "nuclear family", back in those days, that people would MOCK that?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmBut any single parent can tell you first hand what I'm sure you can also tell us: it's very hard.
LOL "it's very hard".

WHY do 'you' PRESUME being a 'single parent' is, so-called, "very hard"?

Have you EXPERIENCED 'it'?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmIt's not the same thing. It's necessary where there's been abuse, or alcoholism, death, or something like that; but it's no path anybody in their right mind should ever choose casually. It's too hard on the kids and the remaining partner.
LOL
LOL
LOL

If a child is brought up with a 'single parent', then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in and of itself 'hard', let alone "too hard", AT ALL. That is just how 'life' IS, for them.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pmIt is not unreasonable or unfair to wish for better.
To "wish for better" means that 'you' are UNHAPPY and UNGRATEFUL with what 'you' have "immanueal can". Is this what "christianity" has TAUGHT to be like?

Are 'you' NOT happy, and NOT grateful, for what 'you' have and have been given "immanuel can"?
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:35 am
Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:28 am So, to 'you', "immanuel can",
Nobody's listening to you, "Age." You should figure that out.
"nobody"???

If only 'you' KNEW. If only 'you' KNEW, "immanuel can".
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15193
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:51 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:35 am Nobody's listening to you, "Age." You should figure that out.
"nobody"???
Nobody.

You write these long, rambling, contentious replies...and have you not noticed that people don't respond to a tenth of it all...or, in some cases, to any of it? Does it not ever occur to you that nobody's paying much attention? Now, why do you think that is?
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:57 am
Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:51 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:35 am Nobody's listening to you, "Age." You should figure that out.
"nobody"???
Nobody.

You write these long, rambling, contentious replies...
LOL "contentious replies". YET, 'you' can NOT PROVE 'them' Wrong NOR even 'contest' them.

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:57 am and have you not noticed that people don't respond to a tenth of it all...
I would say 'you', posters, respond even less. But, it is GOOD you are LOOKING, READING, and keeping COUNT.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:57 am or, in some cases, to any of it?
I do NOT CARE. As I have ALREADY INFORMED 'you'.

The LESS 'you' respond, the BETTER this is WORKING out for me and MY GOAL.

'you' ARE, unintentionally, PROVING just how much 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, would NOT LISTEN to "others", and ONLY wanted, and DESIRED, to BE HEARD, and LISTENED TO, INSTEAD.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:57 am Does it not ever occur to you that nobody's paying much attention?
Would you like to FIX this CLARIFYING QUESTION?

There is just to many things to REPAIR before I could answer 'that' ACCURATELY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:57 am Now, why do you think that is?
But I NEVER answered your so-called "question". So, what we have here, ONCE AGAIN, is just ANOTHER ASSUMED ANSWER MADE, of which the ANSWER ONLY 'I' could PROVIDE, ACCURATELY.

LOL and by the way, 'you' are PAYING ATTENTION here "immanuel can", and are you SOME "body"? If you are SOME "body", then there is SOME "body" PAYING ATTENTION here, and MUCH ATTENTION, by the way.

'you' MUST BE PAYING a LOT OF ATTENTION to what I write, "immanuel can", by your OWN CLAIMS here.

Otherwise, how else would you KNOW that my writings are "rambling" AND "contentious replies"?

So, thank you for PROVING your OWN ASSUMPTION completely AND utterly False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.
Dontaskme
Posts: 12725
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:32 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm Having said that, I've never shied away from hard work and total commitment toward relationships in my life, like the ones I've had with my own children whom I raised single handedly with total unconditional love, and commitment without flailing or flinching away from the huge responsibilty, which I accepted was all mine since I was the one who wanted to bring them into existence.
I wasn't raised by a single mother, but my best friend was. His father died at around 45, of a sudden heart attack. And for me, his mother became my second mother. I was so often in their house I became a surrogate son.

She was a woman of huge courage and integrity. And she worked harder than anyone I can imagine to raise four children...two of each. She was a heroine, in my eyes. I can't say enough about her. I would even say that a large part of what I am today was due to her.

But if she had ever had one wish, I know what it would have been...her husband back. No question. For however hard one works as a single mother, it's a brutal task...and no woman is a man, just as no man is a woman. So there's a lot that just cannot be compensated for, no matter how nobly one tries.

Today, people mock the nuclear family. But any single parent can tell you first hand what I'm sure you can also tell us: it's very hard. It's not the same thing. It's necessary where there's been abuse, or alcoholism, death, or something like that; but it's no path anybody in their right mind should ever choose casually. It's too hard on the kids and the remaining partner.

It is not unreasonable or unfair to wish for better.
Thanks for sharing. And for your understanding.

I loved the father of my children the way I loved my children and my own siblings and my own parents...those bonds we have with our blood relatives are usually the strongest of all bonds, in my opinion.

So for me, the thought of ever replacing the father of my children with someone else, would be like replacing my own biological child with some other child, the bond wouldn't feel the same. In other words, it's not that I do not love other people, I do, but the blood bonds are more intense, because I believe that if we can provide each other with meaningful, true, genuine, loyal support means stability and good mental health which gives strength and the courage to live better lives.

But then everything I have mentioned here, is more to do with how one chooses to place meaning, purpose and value on ones life...but there is another side to life which I have recently delved into, that I had never thought about before, but then started thinking about it more and more, when the realisation dawned that life is extremely hard work is one of the biggest understatements ever made, and that in fact it's much much worse than that, and that has just recently really hit home with me.

.
Age
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:51 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:32 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:53 pm Having said that, I've never shied away from hard work and total commitment toward relationships in my life, like the ones I've had with my own children whom I raised single handedly with total unconditional love, and commitment without flailing or flinching away from the huge responsibilty, which I accepted was all mine since I was the one who wanted to bring them into existence.
I wasn't raised by a single mother, but my best friend was. His father died at around 45, of a sudden heart attack. And for me, his mother became my second mother. I was so often in their house I became a surrogate son.

She was a woman of huge courage and integrity. And she worked harder than anyone I can imagine to raise four children...two of each. She was a heroine, in my eyes. I can't say enough about her. I would even say that a large part of what I am today was due to her.

But if she had ever had one wish, I know what it would have been...her husband back. No question. For however hard one works as a single mother, it's a brutal task...and no woman is a man, just as no man is a woman. So there's a lot that just cannot be compensated for, no matter how nobly one tries.

Today, people mock the nuclear family. But any single parent can tell you first hand what I'm sure you can also tell us: it's very hard. It's not the same thing. It's necessary where there's been abuse, or alcoholism, death, or something like that; but it's no path anybody in their right mind should ever choose casually. It's too hard on the kids and the remaining partner.

It is not unreasonable or unfair to wish for better.
Thanks for sharing. And for your understanding.

I loved the father of my children the way I loved my children and my own siblings and my own parents...
We could tell that by just how saddened you STILL ARE because "he left you".
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:51 am those bonds we have with our blood relatives are usually the strongest of all bonds, in my opinion.
WHY, what has 'blood' got to do with ANY thing here?

Are you saying that if you adopted a child and had "your own" child, then you would love one more over the other one?

If yes, then what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you make your judgment calls on, here?

Also, WHY would you love, let us say call them a 'blood relative' more than say the child from down the room?

And, the father of your children was NOT a 'blood relative' correct?

If yes, then if you love the father of "your" children the 'way' you loved "your own" children and other blood relatives, then would this contradict your CLAIM that the bonds 'you', human beings, have with your 'blood relatives' are usually the strongest of all bonds?
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:51 am So for me, the thought of ever replacing the father of my children with someone else, would be like replacing my own biological child with some other child, the bond wouldn't feel the same.
OF COURSE It would NOT.

Even the bond with EACH of "your own" children is NOT the same.

And, the bond you might feel with another newer fatherly or husband figure might actually be far STRONGER than the one you had with the previous one.
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:51 am In other words, it's not that I do not love other people, I do, but the blood bonds are more intense, because I believe that if we can provide each other with meaningful, true, genuine, loyal support means stability and good mental health which gives strength and the courage to live better lives.
All while you WISHED you NEVER brought your OWN children into this Life.

And, IMAGINE if 'you', human beings, just STARTED LOVING EVERY one, EQUALLY, and as much as you do with the closest ones, to you, and what kind of 'life' and 'world' that would CREATE for 'you' ALL?
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:51 am But then everything I have mentioned here, is more to do with how one chooses to place meaning, purpose and value on ones life...but there is another side to life which I have recently delved into, that I had never thought about before, but then started thinking about it more and more, when the realisation dawned that life is extremely hard work is one of the biggest understatements ever made, and that in fact it's much much worse than that, and that has just recently really hit home with me.

.
LOL
LOL
LOL

life, itself, and living, is the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST 'things' to do.

'you', adult human beings, just make 'life' and 'living' SEEM complicated and hard with your INCESSANT, UNNECESSARY WANTS and DESIRES.

There is absolutely NOTHING hard NOR complicated about 'living' NOR about 'life', itself. NEVER has been, NEVER will be, and NEVER IS.

As is ALREADY PROVED True.

And, which NONE of 'you' have even the courage to CHALLENGE this Fact. Which can be PROOF in and of ITSELF.
Dontaskme
Posts: 12725
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:09 am
Also, WHY would you love, let us say call them a 'blood relative' more than say the child from down the room?
I would never adopt a child or foster one...even if I or my husband found out that we were both infertile, or even if just one of us was infertile and my husband suggested the idea of adoption to me, I would have declined the idea..In that case scenario, I would continue on living a childfree life, and my husband would have been totally free to choose whether to stay with me childfree or leave me to find someone else who he could have children with, if that's what he wanted. I would be saddened if he did leave, but ultimately I would have to have let him go and accept that it wasn't meant to be. Luckily for us, we both wanted children and were able to have them naturally.
Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:09 amAnd, the father of your children was NOT a 'blood relative' correct?
When I took the marriage vow to love only him until death do us part, where two become one, that to me, meant he was my blood, becoming an even stronger bond when he planted his seed into my body that brought about blood children that were from my partner, making my partner my blood bond.
So no contradiction there for me...but if you want to believe there is a contradiction there, I don't care, that's your skewed thinking not mine.

.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

I wrote: "A 'righteous God' is a God absolutely outside of human issues and problems. In this sense a 'righteous' God must be an absolutely intelligent God, and thus knows that in one way or another, in one moment or another, all souls can be reached"
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pmYes! This is what I see/think, as well. So, I must wonder about men who fabricate a structure/idea based on their own limitations, and then insist that IT defines and rules over all, as an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of all. And they (themselves) are the uniquely divine interpreters of it, while casting themselves as being in service to its greatness. Such madness/delusion tangled up in ego and desperation is fascinating (and can be horrifying). Such does not reflect the clarity or broadness of sight of a god, at all. Rather it represents man who is willingly and willfully accepting or utilizing deception (and lies) and denial to sustain whatever delusion serves that man.
The questions that you ask, and I repeat this often, have to be seen and examined within the *context* in which you ask them. There is *the general social, political and economic context* in which your questions arise, and then, drilling down into the matter, there is your personal reasons for (as I interpret it) your reaction against those limitations that you feel constrained you.

I am reminded that you once described the motto "Jesus Christ, the same then and forever and ever" (paraphrased) on a plaque of the pulpit at your childhood church. It rubbed you the wrong way. It did not seem 'true'. For I suppose you say, and according to your doctrine you must say, that whatever Jesus Christ is must be ever in evolution, ever in development and transformation.

You say that men "fabricate a structure/idea based on their own limitations". I propose that if this idea-statement were examined more closely that I would likely find that it dovetails with some modern, perhaps 'revolutionary' ideas, that have come to the fore in the Sixties and post-Sixties. This is why I say all 'declarations' can be and must be probed and their ideological content revealed and exposed. I am not sure, as you seem to be sure, that the structural ideas that have been accreted are 'fabrications' in the sense in which you use that word. I would instead examine the history of their development, and certainly as it pertains to the roots of Christianity, better see and better understand the 'revelatory' dimension. What is revelation? As a way to understand it I could suggest examining Plato's Seventh Epistle where, describing what can result from certain disciplines of mind (and intelligence) which are part of his method and teaching he says:
"For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself."
This is, I would suggest, a form of revelation, and thus I present it as a way to open an examination of what *it* is. So the question is: Is this 'invented'? Is this 'fabricated'? You seem to have come to a solid conclusion. And if as you say all ideas of these sorts are invented, they are, it would seem, simply devised as structures to control. And as you say "it represents man who is willingly and willfully accepting or utilizing deception (and lies) and denial to sustain whatever delusion serves that man".

Obviously, I propose a closer examination of what you propose. That is why I refer to Robert Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. You could, to get a sense of what he criticizes, examine some of the quotes from his book. But I would definitely recommend reading his book. It changed my outlook and provided me with a new orientation. But that much is clear, isn't it? What I define is essentially conservative and tends toward the traditional as well. I mean 'traditional' in a special, metaphysical sense. Yet now, with the introduction of the term 'metaphysical', we have a whole other needed set of definitions.

Do your ideas have a metaphysical base? Can they be expressed as metaphysical tenets? Have you thought these things through? What is the basis of your propositions related to 'endless innovation'?

As should be obvious, I am interested in what puts a brake on 'endless innovation'. I am interested in defining 'metaphysical bedrock'. I am more interested in countering ungrounded innovation which seems to have revolutionary impulse, and thus vast 'consequences' that I sincerely doubt are really any good at all (and certainly this must be proved not merely stated).

So in this sense I am on the whole in alignment with what I understand IC's *larger project * to be. Yes, I differ in details but not in the over-arching sense. And I have, at the very least, devoted a good deal of time (years) to examining Christian material, now pushed to the side, now depreciated, now no longer understood, now misunderstood and now denigrated (and also despised), to see that a vast content of *value* has been dismissed when it really should be embraced and elevated.

That is my position. And I believe I can back it up.

So in this sense I align with what IC has himself said (in regard to another topic but the general ideas come through:
IC wrote: "And today there's a special reason for hating marriage among the Neo-Marxists. It's that the destruction of the nuclear family and the scrambling of sex roles leaves a populace angry, adrift, permanently unhappy and alienated -- in short, the perfect lumpenproletariat revolutionaries. So no wonder today's Left is so hateful about marriage and sex roles, and calls them "oppressive." They shore up social stability and the social fabric, and make people content. Neo-Marxists do not want that."
I define a counter-revolutionary position. I define a 'traditionalist' position. And I define a position in which I go back through the idea-hierarchies and glean out of them the 'value-elements' which I feel should not be dismissed. But to be truthful I go beyond this as well in ways that I do not think would be taken well by those with *progressive* inclinations and ideological commitments. That is one reason why I attempt to define a specifically Greek and also a European and (gasp) Anglo-Saxon or better said Indo-European position in regard to the Christian teachings that came from Judea. (The entire consideration has become 'forbidden territory', though there are some serious *scholarly* examinations such as The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation (Russell, 1996).

I am interested in, and involved in, ideas that pertain to the renovation and renewal of Europe, not the breaking apart through acidic processes of European identity. My *identitarian* position is not at all well-received in our present and, as well, has problematic elements that I recognize.
What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?
This to me is -- permit me the honesty -- an absurdly premised statement. If something is not *true* it should not become the foundation for the structures we build.
______________________

Here is a review-quote from the Amazon page of the book I mention. It is a good review and provides some info as to why I consider it important:
In the "Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity," James Russell argues that the conversion of the Germanic tribes, over the course of centuries, from roughly 400 AD down until 800 AD, resulted in a fundamental transformation of Christianity. The book could be subtitled "Contra Nietzsche," for Russell carves-out a grand exception to Nietzsche's portrayal of Christianity as "slave morality." Stated differently, and more baldy than Russell would, the process of "Germanization" amounted to a reversal of early Christian values.

Russell identifies the cult of saints, sacral kingship & crusades, proprietary churches, and a dramatic-representational liturgical form as examples of "Germanization." But his argument is at the level of paradigms, not empirical history as such. He maintains that a heroic, world-accepting, folk-centered reinterpretation of Christianity emerged, displacing the early version of Christianity which was world-rejecting & universalist, urban & anomic & soteriological. "As a consequence of the religio-political influence of the Ottonian emperors in Rome during the tenth and eleventh centuries, this Germanic reinterpretation eventually became *normative* throughout western Christendom." The Gothic cathedral would be its ultimate artistic expression.

The question thus arises, which Christianity is the real Christianity? The primitive church, which all later reform movements would seek to restore in one way or another--from the mendicant orders down through the Protestant Reformation and the Second Vatican Council--or the Germanized version? A better question might be, which Christianity is better able to resist Islam? [I would here suggest that a far more demanding 'resistance' is required, but this must be defined -- AJ]

Russell's thesis is of the utmost relevance to the spiritual-political situation in today's Europe, where the prospect of city-to-city, street-to-street, house-to-house warfare against Islam is imminent. In contrast to such leading thinkers of the Right as Alain de Benoist, who in matters of religion seem to do little more than adopt the quietist position of the late Heidegger, in essence waiting for new pagan gods to save us, the implication of Russell's argument is that a "counter reformed" Christianity is the only real option if Europe's defenders are to have spiritual resources.

Also, Russell's discussion of "Hellenization" in the first half of the book is fascinating, wherein the expansion of Greece (and later Rome) entailed the loss of Indo-European identity. The conversion of the German barbarians, in a mirror-image ruse, brought with it a reassertion of the Indo-European, albeit on a higher & more chivalrous plane
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15193
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:58 am LOL "contentious replies". YET, 'you' can NOT PROVE 'them' Wrong NOR even 'contest' them.
I can. So easily. They're mostly just silly objections to absolutely everything...especially common sense.

But they're not worth it. They might be challenging to a fifteen year old who's read nothing, gone nowhere and knows nothing; they're not even a minor challenge to a mature or thoughtful person. Talking to you is like swatting gnats...one can kill many, and at will; but there are always more little bugs that can appear and replace them...because you don't think. Instead, you just talk, and talk and talk.

Why do you think it is you have to launch off three or four messages, and lengthy ones at that, to elicit any response? It's because you're being boring, trivial and contentious...but you have nothing to offer the conversation.

So do better. Talk less. Think more. And people might start talking to you like a normal person would.
Nick_A
Posts: 5905
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Alexis
The question thus arises, which Christianity is the real Christianity? The primitive church, which all later reform movements would seek to restore in one way or another--from the mendicant orders down through the Protestant Reformation and the Second Vatican Council--or the Germanized version? A better question might be, which Christianity is better able to resist Islam? [I would here suggest that a far more demanding 'resistance' is required, but this must be defined -- AJ]
One thing which has been proven unfortunately true in the world is that real Christianity no longer exists in it. It has devolved into a myriad of man made opinions fighting for superiority. In fact, find me one person who understands how to approach the question of the one real Christianity with the boatload of variations of Christendom. Such rare ones must remain hidden to survive the onslaught of experts.

I have to sympathize with Simone here when she wrote that: "what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides."

For these rare ones in which the quality of their being calls them to truth. it must be a horror to be surrounded by those of opinions while lacking the courage to experience "truth."
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Thank you for your response. I'll answer your post in small bites to try to help keep my statements and meaning simple and clear. :)
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pm I am reminded that you once described the motto "Jesus Christ, the same then and forever and ever" (paraphrased) on a plaque of the pulpit at your childhood church. It rubbed you the wrong way. It did not seem 'true'. For I suppose you say, and according to your doctrine you must say, that whatever Jesus Christ is must be ever in evolution, ever in development and transformation.
I say it because I see that everything/everyone in our world/life/view evolves and there are many dimensions/facets to be seen/realized from many angles/perspectives. So, a singular, unchanging perspective does not reflect some kind of 'full truth', and it shouldn't claim to. That seems obvious to me. Do you disagree?

I recognized (even as a child) that the adults were trying to confine, control, limit things that they didn't and couldn't understand, accept, or know fully, completely, specifically, etc. It made much more sense to me that any such creative force would be way beyond our comprehension and our definitions and stories. That was more magnificent and inspiring to me than the caricatures that were being propped up and paraded around in Christianity (or any other kind of religion).
Post Reply