Christianity

[seeds]

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.

Perhaps you haven't yet spoken with the right person about such issues. So, what "contemporary events" are you talking about? And how are they breaking-down the possibility of metaphysical agreements?

By "contemporary events" I refer to the entirety of the present social and political conditions which go on, with increasing intensity, all around us. There is not one person writing on this forum who agrees with any other person at a fundamental level. Each person, each perspective, seems atomized and instead of it being possible to forge alliances or build bridges, what goes on here is 'idea-war'. Now, all around us the heat and the intensity builds and 'toning it down' is no part of anyone's modus operandi. So my view is that when fundamental disagreements become manifest at this level it is *war* that is the next step. But I am not necessarily saying that I desire that war be avoided.

I tend to think of the prevailing state of the world as being a situation where humanity is in the chaotic process of transitioning between two paradigm bubbles.

What I mean is that we are in the process of moving out of the "old (material/spiritual) paradigm"...

(which is a general state of mind [a general level of consciousness] that humanity has functioned at for the last several millennia)

...and into a "new paradigm bubble" (a higher level of consciousness) that has not only been initiated by the discoveries in quantum physics and cosmology, but also as a result of the more widespread use of mind-expanding drugs.

I'm a big fan of using visual metaphors. In which case, I suggest a Venn diagram might be helpful in understanding the reason for the problems you pointed out in your concern over "contemporary events"...



The bubble on the left represents, again, the "old (and crumbling) paradigm" which once maintained a tenuous (but tolerable) balance between science and religion.

In other words, until fairly recently, science and religion somehow managed to get along with each other (at least to a limited degree).

The old paradigm, of course, contains all of the mythological nonsense that forms the numerous (and incompatible) religions of the world, which are, themselves, like smaller (mutually repellent) bubbles held within the greater bubble of the old paradigm.

However, due to the expanding population and globalization pushing us closer together, the incompatibility of the world's religions...

(not to mention our socio-political systems that are generally built around our religious systems)

...has us on the brink of destroying ourselves.

But that's not the problem I'm getting at with the Venn diagram.

No, the problem is that modern science and cosmology have helped to expose the utter nonsense of the old religions and is ushering in their demise,...

...which, consequently, is destroying the "glue," so to speak, that helps to bind us together in a general state of consensus (at least within the religion-based bubbles of the societies we were born into).

And that, in turn,...

(because there is nothing [no grand unifying vision] to forge an alliance around)

...is producing the "atomization" you spoke of, and is creating the middle area of the diagram, which represents the chaos and confusion that will reign until humanity's transition into a new (material/spiritual) paradigm bubble is complete.

Forgive me for mixing metaphors, but as I have suggested several times in other threads:

I have often portrayed the ascension of modern science (i.e., quantum physics, astrophysics, etc.) in the metaphorical terms of being like a frantically flapping butterfly wing that is in desperate need of the symmetry of its other wing (spirituality), which is still stuck in the "chrysalis" of archaic beliefs.

In other words, we need a new spiritual “mythology” that can exist in harmony with our newer and more advanced understanding of the universe.

So, the challenge is to find a new metaphysical vision of reality that can replace all of the ancient religions in a way that not only serves the same function and purpose as the old,...

...but also, doesn't look incredulous and nonsensical from the perspective of modern science.

If we can do that, then we will finally be able to move out of that chaotic (rudderless/ungrounded/atomized) middle section of the diagram...



...and into the new paradigm bubble in which science and religion can once again maintain a tolerable co-existence.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

It is possible, likely even, that I do not have the breadth of experience that I'd like to have to be able to *see clearly* the lines of causation that have led to the present moment, yet it does seem to me that we could locate a primary cause in what I refer to as the breakdown in metaphysical agreements.

Nietzsche stated it in this way:

Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving?

What is that 'horizon'? What else could it be but the Scholastic model of The World?

What is this "...Scholastic model of The World..." to which you are referring?

The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen/renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, commoners, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals. Each link in the chain might be divided further into its component parts. The chain of being is composed of a great number of hierarchical links, from the most basic and foundational elements up through the very highest perfection, in other words, God.
God sits at the top of the chain, and beneath him sit the angels,...

I'm not real clear on why you would suddenly insert the concept of the "Great Chain of Being" after your Nietzsche quote, nevertheless, I am open to discussing it.

The "GCoB" gets the God part right, but I suggest that the "angels" part (among other parts) is wrong.

Here's my own version of the "Great Chain of Being" as it applies to our universe...



I had a long discussion with Nick_A in the Panentheism thread regarding what I believe are the dubious aspects of the standard description of the "GCoB".

If you're interested, then here's a link to two posts where I offer what I believe is a more logical break-down of the "Great Chain of Being":
viewtopic.php?p=327101#p327101

...In the natural order, earth (rock) is at the bottom of the chain; this element possesses only the attribute of existence. Each link succeeding upward contains the positive attributes of the previous link and adds at least one other. Rocks possess only existence; the next link up is plants which possess life and existence. Animals add motion and appetite as well.
Man is both mortal flesh, as those below him, and also spirit, as those above. In this dichotomy, the struggle between flesh and spirit becomes a moral one. The way of the spirit is higher, more noble; it brings one closer to God. The desires of the flesh move one away from God. The Christian fall of Lucifer is thought of as especially terrible, as angels are wholly spirit, yet Lucifer defied God (who is the ultimate perfection).

Because the above quote mentions the "...fall of Lucifer..." and "...Lucifer defied God...," it (along with the image you supplied) is referencing "old paradigm" nonsense.

Those words and the imagery they evoke are a part of those useless "tailings" I mentioned earlier that we need to discard after mining the valuable nuggets from the Christian Story.

As I tried to make clear in my prior post, it's time to transition beyond the mythological nonsense of the old and crumbling paradigm established by our ancient ancestors and move into the new paradigm bubble.

So it seems to me that when we stand away from the disagreements that are ever-present and ever-dominant in this specific conversation, we must see that we are in a fragmented condition having fallen away from a unifying vision or idea of the world.

I am going to suppose that what I am saying here makes sense to you and the reason I put it tentatively is because my impression is that many people who are fragmented do not realize that they are so. So what is one outcome of the fragmentation I refer to? A type of mental unbalance. And what is the core cause? The loss of the ground under one's feet. That is, metaphysical certainty.

Yes, what you are saying does make sense to me. And as I tried to demonstrate in my prior post, the "...metaphysical certainty..." that humans once enjoyed (in the form of the world's religions) is being decimated by modern science,...

...hence the need to re-establish "...the ground under one's feet..." by finding a new (and more logical) spiritual vision of reality.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

C'mon you shards & fragments, you sons & daughters of civilization's salvific Moloch! Surely there must be more?

Seeds replies: If you can't imagine the incredible degree of "more" implied in the two illustrations above, then keep studying them until (hopefully) it dawns on you.

Again, I admit that I could be wrong, but I propose that there literally cannot be "more" to our ultimate and eternal destiny than what the illustrations suggest.

You will have to explain in prose or in other symbols. I could only sort of get what you mean by the symbolic diagrams.

You asked me the following...

How would you go about isolating the *relevant nuggets* [from the Christian Story] and into what metaphysical system can they be fitted?

Well, I personally believe that the main and most "relevant nugget" that can be mined and isolated from the "Christian Story" is the fact that Christian metaphysics proclaims that we humans are the "offspring" (children/progeny) of the Creator of this universe, who have each been created in the image of said Creator, of which is clearly depicted in the following illustration...



Indeed, the illustration metaphorically implies that in our present form, we are what I call the "Ultimate Seeds" of the "Ultimate Lifeform" (God), with God being the fully-fruitioned "adult version" of that which we are the seeds of.

In other words, our minds contain the encapsulated potential of eventually being able to create (post death) a universe out of the living (mental) fabric of our very own being, just as God has done with the living (mental) fabric of his (her/its) own Being.

I don't know how I can make the possible truth of reality any clearer (or more "natural" and "organic") than what is implied in the illustration.

Now, of course, the hardcore materialists and atheists on the forum will insist that what I am suggesting is just wishful (pie-in-the-sky) nonsense, and that the blind and mindless processes of chance can explain the unfathomable order of the universe.

And that, my friend, is infinitely more ridiculous than anything a theist might propose.

As I have often stated...

It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly ironic it is that our exponentially growing accumulation of knowledge can reveal mind-blowing levels of complexity and order in how the universe is constructed, yet the more complex and ordered it seems to be, the more willing some humans are to think that the order is founded upon “serendipity.”

Again, I'm not insisting that my theory cannot be wrong, however, I am insisting that the chance hypothesis...

...is utterly ridiculous!!!

As I have repeatedly suggested, the universe is a mentally-manifested, "dream-like" illusion (not a dream, just "dream-like"), and that all humans are, in essence, "sleepwalking" through life.

And thus, depending on the intensity with which a materialist/atheist believes in and articulately defends the "chance hypothesis",...

...it simply demonstrates the depth and degree of that person's somnambulism in the "big dream."
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nietzsche: "Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving?"

AJ: What is that 'horizon'? What else could it be but the Scholastic model of The World?

What is this "...Scholastic model of The World..." to which you are referring? I'm not real clear on why you would suddenly insert the concept of the "Great Chain of Being" after your Nietzsche quote, nevertheless, I am open to discussing it.

Simple: the horizon that was wiped away was, and is, essentially the Scholastic Model.

The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen/renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, commoners, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals. Each link in the chain might be divided further into its component parts. The chain of being is composed of a great number of hierarchical links, from the most basic and foundational elements up through the very highest perfection, in other words, God.
God sits at the top of the chain, and beneath him sit the angels . . .

This would correspond to what you have described as mythological nonsense. Though it must be understood that our language and our concepts (our conceptualization of things) is infused and interwoven with ideas and symbols that came to be uniquely within that Old Model (the chain of being). Meaning, images or patterns that were imposed on *reality* in order to storify it. A Story, a picture, a model, provides a structure in which one can build. And indeed Occidental man certainly built within that structure. Similarly, in all other cultures, various other models and pictures have been employed (similar in ways to the diagrams that you submit because 'a picture is worth a thousand words'). These comprise the *cosmological model* and the cosmological model offers a way to organize society, give it order, etc.

I do not think that this particularly needs to be discussed since, like you, I agree that the models, the pictures, and indeed the old cosmologies that were conceived of cannot any longer function sufficiently.

So what was *wiped away* (the entire horizon) was a model of appreciating and understanding reality. But more than that: a model that provided a picture of continuity for the incarnated soul. Now, souls do not exist. They simply evaporate back into the elements.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I had a long discussion with Nick_A in the Panentheism thread regarding what I believe are the dubious aspects of the standard description of the "GCoB".

Oh I am not 'defending' the picture or the diagram (which it really is) portrayed by TGCOB, as if it is a model that can work for us. But I will say that to understand our culture, and definitely our language-conceptions and constructs, one is advised to understand it far better than we seem to.

[Nick_A]

Man on earth, in Plato's Cave, is a mechanical creature of reaction reacting as does all animal life to earthly and cosmic influences. As such everything repeats; dust to dust. Jesus efforts in life and death made it possible for those open to it to consciously change their being; to evolve into a higher quality of being. But this requires appreciating Man's being; knowing what being is. This doesn't appear to be the place for it.

I understand that. But Plato, when conceiving of Plato's Cave (and it is a multi-layered metaphor) had no access to Jesus nor the Holy Spirit if one understand those things to have come into existence in the specific moment of time (Advent and Pentecost). I want to make my question as plain as possible: Is the 'changing of our being' dependent, specifically, on the advent of Jesus?

Please note that I am not, at least I do not think so, outside of being able to understand what you have been saying for quite some months (and apparently years). I do grasp 'the higher dimensions' and also that influences can come to bear on one that transform. True, this is not the place for talking about all of that. But what did you expect? But I hope that you do not feel that no one was able or is able to understand what you are getting at.

My interest in these conversations is ... what is it? It is for me about clarifying ideas that pertain to the mundane world -- contemporary society and cultural affairs.

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

As understand it, the essence of Christianity as a perennial tradition always was. Man was drawn to consciously evolve but his being or the fallen human condition did not allow it. Jesus or the Christ having intentionally devolved from a higher level of being was the first to demonstrate what is consciously needed to return home to his origin. Christianity teaches the value or what it means to follow Christ and consciously carry ones cross for the sake of his evolution.

There are many in the mundane world. Some can even psychologically profit from the knowledge of Christianity which supports their need for meaning not existing in the world.

[Belinda]

Harbal, I thought again, and now see that I have indeed selected from "off the shelf" what explanations suit me to credit. In my own defense I have the right to change my mind and I have the right to hold my beliefs for the time being.

It's not possible for anyone to be permanently post- modern and continue to exist. Choosing a course of action is almost continually forced upon all of us.

I'm not sure what you mean, Belinda, but I'd like to understand, if you have the patience to explain.

Thanks Harbal.
My first paragraph means that I did not invent any of my ideas.All my ideas come from others who I choose to follow. I've been trained how to select what are generally supposed to be better ideas.

My second paragraph is existentialist theory, mainly Sartre.

Like you, I try to be honest, and I see that my first and second paragraphs are inconsistent. I asked a trained philosopher about my problem and he recommended me to live as if I am free to choose how to live.

He stated that the common denominator of the so called existentialists was their belief that for human beings “existence comes before essence” (p.26). What he meant by this was that, in contrast to a designed object such as a penknife – the blueprint and purpose of which pre-exist the actual physical thing – human beings have no pre-established purpose or nature, nor anything that we have to or ought to be. Sartre was an ardent atheist and so believed that there could be no Divine Artisan in whose mind our essential properties had been conceived. Nor did he believe there to be any other external source of values: unlike for example, Aristotle, Sartre did not believe in a common human nature which could be the source of morality. The basic given of the human predicament is that we are forced to choose what we will become, to define ourselves by our choice of action: all that is given is that we are, not what we are. Whilst a penknife’s essence is pre-defined (it isn’t really a penknife if it hasn’t got a blade and won’t cut); human beings have no essence to begin with:

Googled : Sartre's existentialism.

[Harbal]

My first paragraph means that I did not invent any of my ideas.All my ideas come from others who I choose to follow.

That is probably how most of us come to have most of our ideas. That's fine, but I'm more cautious when it comes to following. I have a limited knowledge of the great thinkers, but one thing I have noticed is that even those with the most brilliant ideas often seem to come up with the occasional clanger, so I tend to be more of a cherry picker when it comes to ideas.

I've been trained how to select what are generally supposed to be better ideas.

I haven't had any training, so I have to resort to the make-it-up-as-I-go-along method.

I asked a trained philosopher about my problem and he recommended me to live as if I am free to choose how to live.

Well even those who don't believe in free will still have to live as if they have it. We all have to make choices, but not everyone makes a conscious decision about how they should live. In my case, I don't think I started making those decisions until relatively late in my life. I don't think there is anything wrong in being influenced by the ideas of others, but I don't believe in trying to walk in their footsteps, and especially so if they happen to be the son of God.

[Gary Childress]

Christ was just a guy a bunch of soldiers brutally murdered a couple of thousand years ago. And people have been murdered ever since. Christianity is a joke.

[Immanuel Can]

My first paragraph means that I did not invent any of my ideas.All my ideas come from others who I choose to follow.

That is probably how most of us come to have most of our ideas. That's fine, but I'm more cautious when it comes to following. I have a limited knowledge of the great thinkers, but one thing I have noticed is that even those with the most brilliant ideas often seem to come up with the occasional clanger, so I tend to be more of a cherry picker when it comes to ideas.

Well, B.'s channelling a kind of Determinism there. "All my ideas come from others," she says. Well, where do "others" ideas come from? Still "others"? Where do the original ideas come from, then? At some point, we have to think somebody thought of something for the first time. Not everybody is a follower. Not everbody even can be. Somebody had to come first.

Additionally, of course, we have to observe that people often change their minds. Somebody raised in a Muslim country entirely, like Ayan Hirsi Ali, becomes an Atheist. How is that even possible, if "all [her] ideas come from [the] 'others' [around her]"?

So I think that's lazy thinking. Sure one can see oneself, believe oneself, and treat oneself as if one is nothing more than a product of the choices of others. But that's also a choice...a choice to be irresponsible, unthinking, lazy or influenceable. And one could choose otherwise.

I asked a trained philosopher about my problem and he recommended me to live as if I am free to choose how to live.

Well even those who don't believe in free will still have to live as if they have it.

Right. Which is one of the things that shows us that Determinism is false. If it were the truth, it would be impossible to live any other way but Deterministically. But in point of fact, it's living Deterministically that turns out to be impossible, and living as if choice exists that is unavoidable. How would such a situation even happen, if the world itself were strictly Deterministic?

But this "trained philosopher" got Sartre wrong, I would say. Sartre said we are "condemned to be free." Those are his words. And he means that the one thing about which we have no choice at all is whether or not to make choices. Even the choice to make no thoughtful, reflective decisions ourselves, and merely to trust in and coast on whatever "others" tell us is, itself, a choice. One has simply chosen not to take responsibility for oneself. And one is, in Sartre's view, not fully human until one steps up and makes one's choices deliberate for oneself. That's what he means when he says, "existence precedes essence." (His words, again.) It means you're not fully alive, not being what a human being really is, if all the time, you're lateralling your choices to "others."

So choices are, again, inevitable. And Determinism is false.

[Nick_A]

My first paragraph means that I did not invent any of my ideas.All my ideas come from others who I choose to follow.

That is probably how most of us come to have most of our ideas. That's fine, but I'm more cautious when it comes to following. I have a limited knowledge of the great thinkers, but one thing I have noticed is that even those with the most brilliant ideas often seem to come up with the occasional clanger, so I tend to be more of a cherry picker when it comes to ideas.

I've been trained how to select what are generally supposed to be better ideas.

I haven't had any training, so I have to resort to the make-it-up-as-I-go-along method.

I asked a trained philosopher about my problem and he recommended me to live as if I am free to choose how to live.

Well even those who don't believe in free will still have to live as if they have it. We all have to make choices, but not everyone makes a conscious decision about how they should live. In my case, I don't think I started making those decisions until relatively late in my life. I don't think there is anything wrong in being influenced by the ideas of others, but I don't believe in trying to walk in their footsteps, and especially so if they happen to be the son of God.

Since humanity as a whole lives as you describe and Plato called the beast, is it surprising that humanity reacts as described in Ecclesiastes 3 concluding as war? A creature of reaction doesn't have choice.

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

If humanity could DO anything, all would be different. But with man on earth, everything HAPPENS as does the change of seasons and life in the jungle. The illusion of choice is one of the chief reasons why secularism is accepted. Everything turns in circles and concludes as "dust to dust" serving nature's purpose. Only a few realize it and seek freedom from the prison of Plato's Cave.

[Harbal]

Well even those who don't believe in free will still have to live as if they have it.

Right. Which is one of the things that shows us that Determinism is false. If it were the truth, it would be impossible to live any other way but Deterministically. But in point of fact, it's living Deterministically that turns out to be impossible, and living as if choice exists that is unavoidable. How would such a situation even happen, if the world itself were strictly Deterministic?

Well it doesn't seem to take a massive step of the imaginagion to see how the world could be deterministic. If we accept the priciple of cause and effect, then we can't really avoid the conclusion that the world is deterministic to some extent. To what extent is the question, and my answer to that is, I simply don't know. Unlike you, IC, I have the luxury of being able to remain open minded on the matter, because I don't have an emotional attachment to any beliefs that might be undermined by the wrong answer.

Actually, when it comes to arriving at a conclusion about how much free will we have, it seems I have far more of it than you do. That's quite ironic, don't you think so?

[Harbal]

Since humanity as a whole lives as you describe and Plato called the beast, is it surprising that humanity reacts as described in Ecclesiastes 3 concluding as war? A creature of reaction doesn't have choice.

You may think my whole approach to life is wrong, Nick, but at least I am trying to figure out what it's all about for myself. I don't think I could get much satisfaction out of trying to live it in accordance with the words of Plato, or Simone Weil, or the Bible. I can't even see any point in trying to.

[Immanuel Can]

Well even those who don't believe in free will still have to live as if they have it.

Right. Which is one of the things that shows us that Determinism is false. If it were the truth, it would be impossible to live any other way but Deterministically. But in point of fact, it's living Deterministically that turns out to be impossible, and living as if choice exists that is unavoidable. How would such a situation even happen, if the world itself were strictly Deterministic?

Well it doesn't seem to take a massive step of the imaginagion to see how the world could be deterministic. If we accept the priciple of cause and effect, then we can't really avoid the conclusion that the world is deterministic to some extent.

No, that doesn't follow, for two reasons.

The first, and most important is that Determinism is an absolute belief. It does not allow for any measure of choice or will to exist, and insists that the comprehensive explanation for what seems to be will or choice is nothing but material cause and effect. So the minute we say, "to some extent," we've left off being Determinists.

The second is that cause-and-effect are perfectly compatible with the idea of choice, so long as human volition is, itself, capable of being a "cause" of things. That's the real point or difference: it's the question, "Can human will be an original cause, or make things happen at all?" And for the Determinist, the answer has to be "No, never."

So if there's any choice or will or volition in the world at all, then one's no longer a Determinist.

And, as you point out, nobody -- and we might add, nobody in the history of the world -- ever lives like a Determinist. We all make choices, and act as if they matter. And we cannot avoid it.

So again, how does that state of affairs even come about if, as Determinists insist, the world itself is 100% Deterministic?

I don't have an emotional attachment to any beliefs that might be undermined by the wrong answer.

Neither do I. Nothing I have even suggested above requires any "beliefs" that could be "undermined" by Determinism. The argument above is entirely secular. One has no need of being a Christian, or anything else, either, to see the reasons they provide.

Now, would Determinism have bad effects for Christianity, if true? I would say "Yes," but that's absent from any of the reasons I've given. And a Calvinist would say, "No." In fact, a Calvinist would insist on Determinism being essential to his faith. Calvinists believe the God does what Materialists believe natural forces do: namely, to predetermine all things. And both believe human beings have no such thing as choice. And neither the Calvinist nor the Materialist Determinist can live as if their creed is true.

I don't know how you can regard the option to believe in Determinism as a "freedom," however; Determinism implies total, ironclad slavery. Can you be "free to believe you're a slave"? If you can "believe" it, then you are free; but if you are a "slave," then your situation is predetermined outside of yourself.

So the "freedom" to "believe" in Determinism turns out to be nothing more than the option of being irrational. Is that really a "freedom" any of us needs?

[Harbal]

No, that doesn't follow, for two reasons.

I had a feeling there would be a quick response to that last post of mine.