Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 12683
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:43 pm
Talk about one who has been SEVERELY TRAUMATIZED, by their past experiences.
Me?
Nah.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:43 pm Oh yes, bein' raised by the Highland Wild People of Borneo was quite traumatic.
Moot.

But, if true, 'you' would be a LESS TRAUMATIZED 'person', then 'you' are now, and 'you' would also be a MORE ACCEPTING and OPEN 'person' then 'you' are now, as well.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13249
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

if true, 'you' would be a LESS TRAUMATIZED 'person', then 'you' are now, and 'you' would also be a MORE ACCEPTING and OPEN 'person' then 'you' are now, as well.
You know nuthin' of the Wild Folk with their dark rites and strange tentacled gods.
Age
Posts: 12683
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:10 pm
if true, 'you' would be a LESS TRAUMATIZED 'person', then 'you' are now, and 'you' would also be a MORE ACCEPTING and OPEN 'person' then 'you' are now, as well.
You know nuthin' of the Wild Folk with their dark rites and strange tentacled gods.
Okay, if you SAY SO.

And, you KNOW FAR MORE, right, "henry quirk"?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13249
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

And, you KNOW FAR MORE, right, "henry quirk"?
Of the Wild People? Oh yes, and of the Tcho-Tcho and the Inhabitants of Dunwich and the goin's on in Arkham and of the Whateley bloodline.

And when the stars are in the right places: so will you.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

So, now that the dismemberment, the disassembly, the break-down, the seeing-through, the disruption of the Christian structure has been complete, there is a show of exultation.

Age for example has availed himself (itself? does *it* even have a gender?) of a Spanking Paddle that operates with an emotional motor to beat on the naughty fesses [partie postérieure] of poor Immanuel Can! who no longer can but can't anymore.

Poor li'l bugger!

But at this point, predictably, you-plural's energy will flag. You-plural can dismantle and destroy but you-plural have no idea at all what to build. The thrust of the effort to see Judaism/Christianity stops at the point of emotional satisfaction in having humiliated the Christian Clown.

No one has spoken, on any level, of an alternative or perhaps a more original, a truer, a more believable metaphysics that would amend or replace the distorted Judeo-Christian social and political mythology. As well, no one even seems interested in discussing and analyzing contemporary events in the light of the break-down in the possibility of metaphysical agreements.

Do we conceive of a non-metaphysical world? Is that the meaning of the deconstruction of the Christian Story? Is all of Christianity a false-metaphysics?
The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of man.

-- Richard Weaver
C'mon you shards & fragments, you sons & daughters of civilization's salvific Moloch!

Surely there must be more?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5331
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pm No one has spoken, on any level, of an alternative or perhaps a more original, a truer, a more believable metaphysics that would amend or replace the distorted Judeo-Christian social and political mythology.
There are many different ideas and beliefs. Why not ask: Why does one need what they need, and why does one replace anything with anything? It doesn't really matter what one chooses. Each person believes what serves them. We're on this philosophy forum, however, to question and explore and challenge everything. We are not in anyone's church -- nothing should be off-limits.

There is value and interest, for some, in choosing to be without attachment to certain templates/structures/ideas. Some people aren't inclined to be told what is and should be. Some people are more inclined to assess each moment and situation independently of certain concepts and people. Clearly there are many different ways of seeing and functioning.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pmAs well, no one even seems interested in discussing and analyzing contemporary events in the light of the break-down in the possibility of metaphysical agreements.
Because we'd have to agree with all sorts of things that we may not agree on. There are so many ways to look at it! Is it breakdown or transformation? Is it a loss or, ultimately, a gain? How big of a picture do you want to look at and agree on?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pmDo we conceive of a non-metaphysical world? Is that the meaning of the deconstruction of the Christian Story? Is all of Christianity a false-metaphysics?
The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of man. -- Richard Weaver
How can we know and agree what that might be? If there is a truth and realization beyond man, it's BEYOND MAN. Our stories are stories. Why can't we accept and live with that? Isn't there enough within every moment and within this beautiful world to be fulfilled by? Why do we need to concoct some 'other' that we'll be rewarded with or fulfilled by eventually? That seems irresponsible to me. Do it NOW. We have a tremendous gift right now.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pm Surely there must be more?
Always! :)
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5331
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

A question about any kind of ‘ultimate truth’...

How is one served by thinking they know such a thing?
Belinda
Posts: 7046
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pm So, now that the dismemberment, the disassembly, the break-down, the seeing-through, the disruption of the Christian structure has been complete, there is a show of exultation.

Age for example has availed himself (itself? does *it* even have a gender?) of a Spanking Paddle that operates with an emotional motor to beat on the naughty fesses [partie postérieure] of poor Immanuel Can! who no longer can but can't anymore.

Poor li'l bugger!

But at this point, predictably, you-plural's energy will flag. You-plural can dismantle and destroy but you-plural have no idea at all what to build. The thrust of the effort to see Judaism/Christianity stops at the point of emotional satisfaction in having humiliated the Christian Clown.

No one has spoken, on any level, of an alternative or perhaps a more original, a truer, a more believable metaphysics that would amend or replace the distorted Judeo-Christian social and political mythology. As well, no one even seems interested in discussing and analyzing contemporary events in the light of the break-down in the possibility of metaphysical agreements.

Do we conceive of a non-metaphysical world? Is that the meaning of the deconstruction of the Christian Story? Is all of Christianity a false-metaphysics?
The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of man.

-- Richard Weaver
C'mon you shards & fragments, you sons & daughters of civilization's salvific Moloch!

Surely there must be more?
The togetherness function of religions is quite a loss to politicians and kings who formerly could align themselves with the Almighty.

I would like a reasonable Christianity to take the honoured place formerly occupied by supernatural authority. Jesus Christ is a moveable icon.
Dubious
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pm
The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of man.

-- Richard Weaver
C'mon you shards & fragments, you sons & daughters of civilization's salvific Moloch!

Surely there must be more?
Whether if can be ever found, which it never was, or whether there even is such a thing which qualifies as "ultimate" which likewise remains dubious, any attempt to find it consists of nothing more than metaphysical residue having no bearing on the destiny of man. An ultimate truth, if there be such, is more likely to reveal itself when not actively sought for. First and foremost, it's the moment which determines the future. Maybe that should be our qualifying ultimate truth...good for as long as we haven't found another, that being extremely improbable.

It's the in-your-face truths staring at us now and how we contend with them that will be decisive for the destiny of man. If there were an ultimate truth most likely it will be conditioned by science in which case, there isn't much we can do about it except adapt.

Weaver's quote, in effect, resembles a medieval quasi-religious BS implicit with some teleological destiny hinging on its discovery. To repeat, that's bullshit! Not least, since when do mortals require some teleological imperative to keep going? For the longest period in our history it wasn't required or acknowledged as necessity. Why, spontaneously assume such a discovery would even make a difference! There seems to be hardly any ‘physics’ left in ‘metaphysics’, that is, a modicum of reality limiting its urges to go haywire.


Truth was never a corporation offering profits and dividends beyond its book value.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:52 pmThere are many different ideas and beliefs. Why not ask: Why does one need what they need, and why does one replace anything with anything. It doesn't really matter what one chooses. Each person believes what serves them.
I wonder, my belovèd [I am so glad we are talking again!] if you realize how the idea you present here is thoroughly post-modern?

Consider the ideas of Richard Weaver from this article:
Relatedly, Weaver also attacked relativism, which applies the nominalist attitude toward classifying objects to moral values. Of course, William of Occam was not himself a moral relativist. That Occam did not believe in universal truth is certainly not Weaver’s claim, as it would be incorrect to attribute moral relativism to this medieval friar. And it would be intellectually irresponsible to simply confuse nominalism and relativism as the same thing. More responsibly, Weaver argued that what follows from nominalism is a rejection of absolute truth. In other words, Weaver identified a connection between the two ideas, suggesting that nominalism led the Western world to relativism. By denying that there are universal essences and absolutes, nominalism led to the current attitude that all values are relative. Years later, Weaver defined relativism as follows:
Relativism generally defined denies outright that there are any absolute truths, any fixed principles, or any standards beyond what one may consider his convenience. A thing is true only relative to the point of view of the individual, or to the time in which it is asserted, or to the circumstances that prevail in the moment. Truth is forever contingent and evolving, which means, of course, that you really never can lay hands on it. Relativism as a theory is actually an abdication of truth.
The article continues:
Relativism asserts that there is no absolute truth and that there is no metaphysical reality beyond the individual. Universal truths do not exist, and value judgments do not have universal validity. Writing in the 1940s, Weaver therefore put his thumb on the very essence of what would eventually be labeled post-modernism, the movement that took shape in the mid-to-late twentieth century that was skeptical of universal truth, morality, and grand narratives. Knowledge claims are, according to this view, constructed rather than discovered. Something might be true for one individual, but it may not be true for another individual—hence making knowledge claims nothing more than another point of view.
LaceWing further says:
We're on this philosophy forum, however, to question and explore and challenge everything. We are not in anyone's church -- nothing should be off-limits.
Well, I'd put it a bit differently but it would seem rather biting: We are indeed on a philosophy forum, and there are some who actually have philosophical training and philosophical habits of mind, but it is more accurate to say that it is a philosophy forum overrun by those who cannot, and will not, or who are not equipped to 'think philosophically'.

The interesting thing to examine when your phrase We are not in anyone's church is examined closely is something that must be pointed out. If we really do understand the reality we are in; if we really do grasp what are the essential and fundamental requisites of this life in this plane of existence -- and all religions and all cultural philosophies are attempts to make statements about just that -- then what you recognize here as a religious perspective (the way that we relate to reality, in this reality, to one another, etc.) would necessarily be clarified and recognized.

But what in fact goes on, and certainly in you, is the carrying-out of successful campaigns of opposition against people like Immanuel Can (religious fanatics) using reasoning tools and a certain emotionalism (indignation). But then everything beyond that point flounders. You can describe all the good (emotion-based) reasons for breaking apart systems you are in reaction to, but you have no means to construct alternatives. Yet, and here is the weird part, your relativism has a fundamentalist twang to it. You very definitely are dealing in positive assertions. Your philosophy is active, determining.

And many people like you have positions in society where their ideas are also imposed.

Your perspective is interesting and considerable because, without thinking your way to the point you operate from, you define a nearly chemically-pure post-modern and relativistic perspective -- yet without seeing the full consequences of such a state. And in a real sense, but one that you have difficulty seeing & recognizing, you are defining a church policy: a fixed and absolutist assertion about the way things are (i.e. absent universal truths).

The position is comfortable to you because, as you have revealed, you grew up in a Church dominated by the likes of *Immanuel Cans*. It was imperative, for your own survival and growth, to get away from him and to get out from under the control of men who enacted their control against you. And rightly so. Necessarily.

You are just one among numerous: some on this thread have spoken of their religious upbringing and their need to negate it and get beyond it.

This entire episode with Brother Immanuel has been about exposing a man who is deeply invested in political and social theological forms that are, largely, social control institutions.
There is value and interest, for some, in choosing to be without attachment to certain templates/structures/ideas. Some people aren't inclined to be told what is and should be. Some people are more inclined to assess each moment and situation independently of certain concepts and people. Clearly there are many different ways of seeing and functioning.
This is, in essence, a 'girlish' intellectual position. I know that this will offend you as it would today to refer to an idea-set as uniquely feminine or female, but there you have it.

Yes, it is true that it is possible to choose no template or structure in the realm of ideas. It is possible to do away, therefore, with all thinking or all reasoning as well. It is possible that we all make choices on the basis of what *feels good to us* or what *seems right in a given moment without reflection*. Yes! I grasp what you are saying!

But that sort of world is a world where idea-structures, for different reasons, are falling apart. That is, that people are falling away from idea-structure, and what you refer to as 'templates', and down into irrationally-based definitions, or non-definitions, based on non-thought (i.e. ideas that are not amenable to rationalization).
Harry Baird
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Age wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:53 am
Harry Baird wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:41 pm As the Good Book itself says
I've proved to you that the "Good Book" is contradictory, and, thus, that it is unreliable, and thus, your quotes from it are irrelevant to the establishment of truth.

Respond to that proof or don't; as it stands, your "Good Book" has no credibility.
Is it POSSIBLE, at all, that what is, supposedly, 'proved' in that link is NOT 'contradictory' REALLY?
That would entail the possibility of either the argument being invalid, or one of its premises being false. It seems perfectly valid to me, so it is POSSIBLY unsound only if one of its premises is false. The only contestable premises, it seems to me, are the ones (numbers one and two) I've labelled "Christian" in the sense of being Biblically based as Christians like Immanuel Can interpret the Bible. As hq has pointed out, some other Christians interpret it differently. The argument is not (wholly) applicable to them, but might become applicable given a minor adjustment to premises two and three.

So, if you want to try to explain on Immanuel Can's behalf how either of those two premises do not reflect his interpretation of the Bible, then go right ahead. It would be quite a strange thing to do, but you're free to give it a go, especially seeing that Immanuel Can himself refuses to.
Age wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:53 am I am just WONDERING If, from your perspective, that BOTH BOTH of YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of the bible could BOTH be just a Wrong INTERPRETATION?
It's possible, but I've read the Bible from cover to cover, and the Gospels several times, and premises #1 and #2 seem to me to be pretty clearly endorsed and supported by the Bible. To be clear, I'm saying that I share IC's interpretation of the Bible in respect to these two premises, so there is only one interpretation in this respect, not two as you imply.
Age wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:53 am Furthermore, I would like to LOOK AT 'your' CLAIM 'proof', and DISCUSS 'it', later on if you would like to as well?
Go ahead if you like. If you think you can point out an invalid inference or a false premise in the argument, then you're welcome to give it a try.

From your later post:
Age wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:57 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:17 am What do you think is tricky and deceptive about [my argument]?
Your misinterpretation.

If you would like clearer examples, more elaboration, or further clarity, then just let me know, okay?

Again, if you wish to share your own interpretation of the Bible, which falsifies either of premises #1 or #2, then go ahead. Continue to be aware though that the argument assumes the Biblical interpretation of Immanuel Can and Christians like him, so your alternative interpretation would not in any case affect its soundness.
Nick_A
Posts: 6126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:23 am
Nick_A wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:28 am The fact that the interactions of all these posts with the intent of defining Christianity make no sense is award winning since it proves how Christianity becomes Christendom making it possible for The Great Beast to retain its position of power.
Nick_A, do you think that there is a normative definition of Christianity (with which, of course, we should then all agree), and, if so, what is that normative definition in your own words?

In all honesty, although you have written a fair bit in this thread, I still don't fully understand how you define Christianity. I don't even understand the extent to which you consider the Bible to be accurate/reliable, nor the extent to which you consider Jesus Christ himself to be (1) an historical person, and (2) the literal saviour of the world, and, to the extent that you disclaim either of those, what you actually believe about Jesus Christ (and about the Bible).

A while back, I asked you some questions to try to clarify this, and you ignored them. Fine, that's your right, but it's odd that you'd complain about us not agreeing on a definition of Christianity in this thread when you ignore attempts to clarify your own definition.
If you can agree with two basic observations concerning what the being of man is and also its conscious evolutionary potential, it would make explaining Christianity more meaningful.

The being of Man is relative depending upon the quality of imagination which governs its psych. Consider how it is explained below:

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/
Frithjof Schuon, a scholar and an authority on Comparative
Religion and the Sophia Perennis, has written a book called
The Transcendent Unity Of Religions. As its title
indicates, the book is about the unity of religious wisdom.
And as the use of the definite article indicates, this unity
is unique. But it is essential to observe that this unity is
also transcendent, i.e., the unity is in the spirit and not
in the letter.

Schuon uses the terms esoteric and exoteric to distinguish
the transcendent spirit of religions from their diverse
formal expressions. A useful diagram can be made which helps
illustrate the essence of this idea:

As Huston Smith writes in the Introduction to Schuon’s book,
“the defect in other versions of this
[esoteric/exoteric] distinction is that they claim unity in
religions too soon, at levels where, being exoteric, true
Unity does not pertain and can be posited only on pain of
Procrusteanism or vapidity.” Once we identify any
particular thought system, no matter how comprehensive, as
the truth, then we have excluded other thought
systems and denied the Truth its unity and its infinite
possibilities for expression. The unity of Truth must
therefore be a Transcendent Unity. “The fact that it
is transcendent,” Smith writes, “means that it
can be univocally described by none.” Thus, while
there is one and only one Truth, there are many expressions
of it.
Are you open to the idea that you live at the exoteric level of reality so incapable of experiencing its transcendent truths? If so, we can better understand why there is so much religious friction and why Socrates said "I know nothing." Transcendent Christianity is far different then exoteric Christianity or what is argued about in Plato's Cave. So all I can do is define it theoretically and contemplate why we are incapable of it and need the help of the Spirit for conscious evolution and a new quality of being.
Harry Baird
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 12:55 am Transcendent Christianity is far different then exoteric Christianity
Transcendent Christianity surely, though, it seems to me, must have some relationship with exoteric Christianity, or are you suggesting that we can chuck away both the Bible and Jesus Christ and nothing about your Transcendent Christianity would change? If so, it seems to me that it would then be very peculiar to continue to refer to it as "Christianity".
Nick_A
Posts: 6126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Harry Baird wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:03 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 12:55 am Transcendent Christianity is far different then exoteric Christianity
Transcendent Christianity surely, though, it seems to me, must have some relationship with exoteric Christianity, or are you suggesting that we can chuck away both the Bible and Jesus Christ and nothing about your Transcendent Christianity would change? If so, it seems to me that it would then be very peculiar to continue to refer to it as "Christianity".
No, it isn't a matter of chucking away the Bible but rather becoming capable of reading the Bible and appreciating Jesus' mission. But thinking in this way is the unforgiveable question. Imagine telling a room full of educated people being told they know nothing in relation to Man's purpose for being here is dangerous.

The Bible was written for the distinct purpose of bypassing the literal mind and touching the inner man. That is why it annoys the secular mind limited to the literal mind.

Christianity has the purpose with the help of the Spirit of making a silk purse out of a sows ear. The sows ear represents man's life in Plato's cave. yet it has the potential to become a silk purse or consciously evolved humanity.

The basic reason everything remains as it is is because we don't believe we live in Plato's cave or the exoteric level of reality. Yet there are those who sense their position with the inner need TO BE.

“The extreme greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” ~Simone Weil


Such a person knows what Christianity offers and can profit from this knowledge with the help of the Spirit.
Harry Baird
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Thanks, Nick_A. That helps me to understand your perspective a lot better.
Post Reply