Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6154
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:11 pm Also note: I think Age has established a new record: a string of 14 posts! What, what I ask, am I missing?!?

Ya he's on one of those:-

WHILE(nobody pays attention to me) {
post again
}
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13430
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Alexis,

what are *we* to do? Learn to speak jackdaw?

nope...to torture a notion: if barbarians are comin' to kill you, get up early in the morning and kill them first

there's no middle ground to be had with 'em: as you say, the forces that oppose the very principles upon which culture and civilization have been constructed can be described as *blind*...but also as ruthless

might be time to stop talkin' and start doin': it's never too late to clean house


the hitch, of course: we are either going to find a way to work together or we are going to be dissolved eventually

speakin' only for myself: I'm not keen on meetin' the new boss (cuz he'll be the same as the old boss) and bosses we'll have, no matter what

you say, we have sufficient ground for *cooperation* even where there are, potentially, 'unbridgable gaps' which seems to me a kind way of sayin' the enemy of my enemy is my friend, a thing naturally leadin' one to wonder, once the barbarians (the current iteration, anyway) are repelled or extnguished, what then?

what then is: we eye our former allies as the adversaries they've become, hands on hilts, fingers close to triggers

your conservatism isn't Mannie's which isn't B's which isn't Nick's which isn't Atto's which isn't mine and on and on

will we vote and strive for the middle ground? (and, in doin' so, encourage new barbarians to rise up among us in our children and grandchildren?)

so: the barbarians aren't our problem (once we set ourselves to it, they're fertilizer): no, we are our problem
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:05 pm So: the barbarians aren't our problem (once we set ourselves to it, they're fertilizer) . . .
Come now, you do not take yourself seriously.
: no, we are our problem
There are times when I have thought that the larger movements in the world today -- struggles between nations, struggle with technological control and the mechanisms now being installed -- may render all the concerns we have here as absurdly irrelevant. And if that is the case then all of this conversing is simply to pass the time or for sport.

To refer to 'barbarians' in Kafka's allegorical terms is only an illustration. It is true, in a way, but it is also a funny way to refer to something sort-of true. Are those who take the strongest stances here, on this thread, genuinely barbarian? I do not think so. And is the division I describe, which seems to me stark at times, is it really real?

Why is it that a common ground cannot be found? Why is it that the divisions increase to such a pitch that some sort of breakdown seems imminent?

I recognize that many explosions are being set up to occur today (there are a few books out now predicting a heightened possibility of open civil conflict in the US) and again it may all be inevitable.

But at least, in this conversation (a series of conversations really) it seems possible to define the common ground. Starting with those who, as you say, do not share the same outlook but a similar one.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13430
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Come now, you do not take yourself seriously.

oh, I do

we conservatives have overlap, but only that

once the barbarians are -- temporarily -- negated, we'll turn on each other, lickity-split
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Classic Liberalism is predicated on non-commensurate groups choosing to live together and avoiding open struggle. Under the Liberal umbrella. Not possible?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13430
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

at least, in this conversation (a series of conversations really) it seems possible to define the common ground.

160 pages in: where's the common ground?

160 page from now: there still won't be any...or, at least, not enough to sustain
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13430
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:41 pm Classic Liberalism is predicated on non-commensurate groups choosing to live together and avoiding open struggle. Under the Liberal umbrella. Not possible?
I've yet to see anything work

I have no illusions about it: even the natural rights anarchism/libertarianism/minarchism I promote offers no peace
Last edited by henry quirk on Sun Jan 23, 2022 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pm I think what is helpful is to notice this division -- but what is it exactly? On what does this division stand?
So, you're imagining/stating a division that everything you're concluding is based on.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pmSome of us have a definite platform of general, but not specific agreement, and what I suggest is that we see this in a larger context and one separate from this immediate conversation. We have sufficient ground for *cooperation* even where there are, potentially, 'unbridgable gaps'.
Are you suggesting this potential for cooperation exists only among those who have a "definite platform of general, but not specific agreement", or can you consider potentials and conclusions that extend beyond that?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pmAnd this is part of my general thrust: we are either going to find a way to work together or we are going to be dissolved eventually.
Dissolved by 'the barbarians'? Perhaps your beliefs will dissolve simply because they do not make sense in a larger light. The epic battle you imagine of heroes and monsters is serving a purpose for you and your experience. The broader 'truth' is clearly much more than that -- as evidenced by the diversity and demonstrated qualities across all perspectives.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pmthe forces that oppose the very principles upon which culture and civilization have been constructed can be described as *blind*, that is true, but also as ruthless. If they have their way, where will their destructive efforts end?
This is your storyline... and apparently you do not know how to operate without it. Your identity/meaning/worth is tied to it.

And this is why many people are repelled by Christianity and other religions, when the 'believers' create/support divisive stories that project their own destructive human natures onto those who do not support their particular belief system, and they actually stir up the horror and demise to fulfill their own prophecies. It's fascinating, really! But so unnecessary.

So, who are blind? Those who fill openness with stories, or those who are not so controlling? Those who depend on divisiveness and definitions to exalt themselves, or those who do not require nor buy into such a thing?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:05 pmI have left out Lacewing. I wonder where she stands? (if the dichotomy I have proposed is 'real' or is my own artificial contrivance).
Ten (or a hundred) different men could come up with different perspectives and assessments of what they're seeing, what is happening, what's important, and where it will lead. Who is right? Then what do they do with their various conclusions? Do they create enemies and make war over it? What role does the ego have in this? What role does fear have in this? There are plenty of considerations to explore without signing on to your interpretation. You want specifics of any other potential, rather than simply recognizing the limitations of your perspective. If you were trapped in a box, would you demand specifics outside of the box before you would consider stepping outside of it?

It's understandable that the great wide-open is terrifying at first... but once you realize that you're safe as part of a whole, there is much more available to you. One's way of thinking changes. Stories are replaced by potential. Ego is less satisfying than love, acceptance, gratitude, etc. You get to play more, and serve less.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Lacewing wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:55 pm
So, you're imagining/stating a division that everything you're concluding is based on.
Rather I am stating a realistic position within the struggle over values, and also of power, in the world in which we live. I am beginning to suppose that I am talking about a *world* about which you know very little. My suggestion? Learn more. Remember "there's always more". 😂
Are you suggesting this potential for cooperation exists only among those who have a "definite platform of general, but not specific agreement", or can you consider potentials and conclusions that extend beyond that?
The cooperation I referenced can be examined through considering this question in specific relation to those who write on this forum and in this thread.

Can people who have no basis for cooperation and agreement cooperate and agree? What "potentials and conclusions that extend beyond that" are you referring to? Be specific, not always general and abstract.
Dissolved by 'the barbarians'? Perhaps your beliefs will dissolve simply because they do not make sense in a larger light. The epic battle you imagine of heroes and monsters is serving a purpose for you and your experience. The broader 'truth' is clearly much more than that -- as evidenced by the diversity and demonstrated qualities across all perspectives
.
That does not appear to be possible, except as fantasy.

As to "epic battles" I can tell you that these are being defined now, not by me, but by people and powers entirely beyond me. I would suggest to you, if only because it would improve your discourse, to look into these matters with greater seriousness. If you cannot talk, relationally, about the open conflicts going on today, then I would say that your discourse is somewhat vain.
This is your storyline... and apparently you do not know how to operate without it. Your identity/meaning/worth is tied to it.
Our world is made up of storylines. And these are *constructed* as well as being *carved out*. Not to have a storyline would be functionally similar to what Paglia said about the building-potential of women: "If it were left up to women we'd all be living in grass huts".

Your commentary, on the whole (but not wholly) seems vain to me. You propose nothing.
And this is why many people are repelled by Christianity and other religions, when the 'believers' create/support divisive stories that project their own destructive human natures onto those who do not support their particular belief system, and they actually stir up the horror and demise to fulfill their own prophecies. It's fascinating, really! But so unnecessary.
You do not, I do not think, have enough information and background to really understand what is at stake. The references to Dawson, and his writing, is a way to expand your *vision* of what is at stake. But you hunker down in your 'grass hut' of limited interpretation. At least you could offer me some herbal tea . . .
It's understandable that the great wide-open is terrifying at first... but once you realize that you're safe as part of a whole, there is much more available to you. One's way of thinking changes. Stories are replaced by potential. Ego is less satisfying than love, acceptance, gratitude, etc. You get to play more, and serve less.
But you know only theoretically about this *great wide-open*. It is a theoretical proposition for you. It is a conversational strategy that is pseudo-philosophical and pseudo-discursive. You just repeat the same post, one and then a hundred times. (If you do not mind me being direct about what seems true).
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6154
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

American ""CHRISTIAN"" Evangelism may as well have been brought to the world by SATAN himself!!

Personally, I am disgusted by these preachers.

:evil:
Nick_A
Posts: 5927
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Walker wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:23 pm
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:03 pm One thing for sure, Christianity cannot be discussed on a secular dominated forum. It is meaningless almost by definition. It would be like everyone here discussing the topic of women. The frightening thing is that discussing women would probably make more sense.
Oh, I don't know Nick. Seems like on Christian dominated forums, which I have never investigated, discussion of Christianity would be about details of the religion, rather than foundation and roots which is more suitable to philosophy. "Preaching to the choir," does reinforce the community sense for the like-minded, but it doesn't necessarily reach the heathen, although being reached is a complex matter that doesn't apply to all situations and methods.

However, discussing Christianity on a secular forum does require some rational discussion, rather than using the forum to spew bigotry towards Christianity, and Christians.
We don't discuss Christianity but rather argue over man made interpretations of what Kierkegaard called Christendom. What if the essence of Christianity predates pre-sand Egypt? Who discusses it?
The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception if the human race until the coming if Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian. -ST. AUGUSTINE, Retractiones


What if the purpose of the essence of Christianity is "rebirth'? Who can discuss it if they haven't experienced it? If they have experienced it, how can it be communicated to those thinking it lunacy?

Obviously it takes a certain environment with those who have experienced rebirth to discuss what opposes it in our being
The Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re-birth". This is their central idea. ... The Gospels are from beginning to end all about this possible self-evolution. They are psychological documents. They are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding. ... Everyone has an outer side that has been developed by his contact with life and an inner side which remains vague, uncertain, undeveloped. ... For that reason the teaching of inner evolution must be so formed that it does not fall solely on the outer side of man. It must fall there first, but be capable of penetrating more deeply and awakening the man himself --the inner, unorganized man. A man evolves internally through his deeper reflection, not through his outer life-controlled side. He evolves through the spirit of his understanding and by inner consent to what he sees as truth. The psychological meanings of the relatively fragmentary teaching recorded in the Gospels refers to this deeper, inner side of everyone.

- Maurice Nicoll; The New Man
It should be obvious how difficult it is to discuss Christianity since we associate it with Christendom. Also, it is obvious that the world struggles against it to protect its illusions.

Since we don't know what it is and since the world or Plato's Cave doesn't want it, if you can find two or three open minded souls with the need to understand, your efforts to understand may not be in vain.
Dubious
Posts: 3133
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:07 pm
Dubious wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:20 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:24 pm
You'll find it is.

Like it or not, that's how God promises it's going to be.
The most pathetic gods ever invented are of the OT and the NT. To believe as literal anything so diminutive as this idiotic father & son story requires a brain scan to discover what went wrong!
--->But it is ONLY the MISINTERPRETATIONS that get taught are what is IDIOTIC.

***When one learns and understands FULLY what the word 'God' refers to EXACTLY, and/or what ACTUALLY happens and occurs, which the word 'God' could be labelled to, then there is NOTHING 'idiotic' AT ALL here.
--->Actually what is idiotic is taking any of it literally which can be qualified as the worst kind of interpretation.

***When one understands that god is an entity made to serve a human purpose then you're right, there is nothing idiotic about it.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6154
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Dubious wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:20 am The most pathetic gods ever invented are of the OT and the NT. To believe as literal anything so diminutive as this idiotic father & son story requires a brain scan to discover what went wrong!

I'm still thinking you need a brain scan since you posted this, and failed to answer:-

Dubious wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:59 am Jesus was nothing more than a cultist preacher not unlike John the Baptist who never once proved themselves useful. Nietzsche is immeasurably more valuable than some ancient back alley preacher who got himself crucified for the most stupid of reasons.
Nietzsche?

What did Nietzsche do in the name of giving hope and promoting love to people?
iambiguous
Posts: 650
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe in the God of Moses and Abraham.

So, for Christians, how important is it to establish whether Jesus Christ Himself is in fact an integral component of God's Scripture? Whether he was God on Earth or not would seem to pale next to how one construes Him to either be or not to be their own personal savior on Judgment Day.

Ask a Christian, ask a Jew, ask a Muslim. What of Judgment Day for each of them?

Or, for the God of Moses and Abraham, does it really come down merely to what your "interpretation" is on Judgment Day. You may be utterly wrong about the existence of Jesus Christ or Muhammad. But God is still willing to grant you immortality and salvation if you can, what, convince Him that you still deserve it?

Of course, there are those who don't put much stock in Judgment Day at all. Their own "private and personal" God is considerably more tolerant when it comes to connecting the dots between morality "down here" and immortality and salvation "up there".

God doesn't think at all like hundreds of millions of Christians, Muslims and Jews around the globe think He does. No, instead, God thinks like they do.
Dubious
Posts: 3133
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:56 pm
Dubious wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:20 am The most pathetic gods ever invented are of the OT and the NT. To believe as literal anything so diminutive as this idiotic father & son story requires a brain scan to discover what went wrong!

I'm still thinking you need a brain scan since you posted this, and failed to answer:-

Dubious wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:59 am Jesus was nothing more than a cultist preacher not unlike John the Baptist who never once proved themselves useful. Nietzsche is immeasurably more valuable than some ancient back alley preacher who got himself crucified for the most stupid of reasons.
Nietzsche?

What did Nietzsche do in the name of giving hope and promoting love to people?
I was just about to respond to your original post when I encountered this one. Not very patient are you. Since you think I need a brain scan the following won't change your mind.

Anyways, this is what I wrote - which is somewhat lengthy - and the final one in response to your question.

Love & hope are qualities spread among humans unconditionally that being its main signature unlike the NT requirement that one must love and believe in Jesus to be saved and receive the tributes of salvation. There is no demand that I must believe someone or something to be deemed worthy of what is freely given by those with some degree of empathy which I believe not uncommon in most of us when called for.

Re Nietzsche, as among most philosophers but primarily those who examine and view the world existentially, their function is to analyze the current human condition and how it has changed from what it was for almost two millennia; how certainties have become uncertainties in spite of everything known that for most of history remained unknown.

The usual anodynes of religion are past their shelf life and cease to be effective which is also everywhere apparent in art and literature. There has been a vast truncation of the spiritual; the simple motto of Jesus Saves is more indicative of a desperate hope than a healing one. This flattening of the spiritual from the vertical to the horizontal is exactly what is examined by the likes of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard without any gratuitous promises of hope and love; instead an investigation of what may yield it under a new transforming paradigm...if still possible.

Times are not at all as they have been for such a long period; neither is philosophy which must accommodate these millennial upheavals to remain viable by examining new priorities inflicted by new conditions.

Here are a few quotes - referring to love mostly - by him who IC denigrates as a syphilitic madman>>

“The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be mind.”

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”

“I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.”

“What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives acts and experiences otherwise than we do?”

“What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.”

“Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.”

"The demand to be loved is the greatest of all arrogant presumptions."

"There is not enough love and goodness in the world to permit giving any of it away to imaginary beings."


Make of it what you want!
Post Reply