Christianity

[Harbal]

The New Covenant is the advent of Jesus interpreted as the Christ whose sacrifice atones for sins. Since God chose to be incarnated this is a gracious act of God's towards us and moreover we cannot be freed from the afore -said 'sin' unless we accept that only God's grace can do it for us. It's about guilt . The modern idea is that there are no sins and we need to look at moral evil the same way we regard natural evil.

So you would literally have to believe in God, and accept the odd way that God goes about doing things for any of this to make any kind of sense?
I don't even fully understand the concepts of sin and evil in this instance. I get the impression that Nick sees people like me as rejecting this wonderful vision he has. I probably would reject it if I understood it, but absolutely none on it makes the slightest bit of sense to me.

[Nick_A]

The New Covenant is the advent of Jesus interpreted as the Christ whose sacrifice atones for sins. Since God chose to be incarnated this is a gracious act of God's towards us and moreover we cannot be freed from the afore -said 'sin' unless we accept that only God's grace can do it for us. It's about guilt . The modern idea is that there are no sins and we need to look at moral evil the same way we regard natural evil.

So you would literally have to believe in God, and accept the odd way that God goes about doing things for any of this to make any kind of sense?
I don't even fully understand the concepts of sin and evil in this instance. I get the impression that Nick sees people like me as rejecting this wonderful vision he has. I probably would reject it if I understood it, but absolutely none on it makes the slightest bit of sense to me.

Of course it doesn't make sense. You, like everyone else here, accepts the premise of a personal God. But Christianity doesn't have a personal God getting insulted and sending people to hell. So how did this start? It began with the fact that Israel imposed on Christian believers the acceptance of the Old Testament and its almighty God, and that Rome chose Christianity as the religion of the Empire. Despite its universal redemptive mission, the Church became from its very beginnings heir of Jewish nationalism and of the totalitarianism inherent in Imperial Rome. As the spiritual locus in which both traditions of power displaced the religion of powerless slaves, Christianity became the actual negation of its own foundational leitmotiv: the self-annulment of divine omnipotence by the godly act of kenosis or self-abasement.

How can we discuss sin for example when some define it as a personal God being insulted and others like me know it is just the result of the fallen human condition preventing Man's conscious evolution?

[Harbal]

Of course it doesn't make sense. You, like everyone else here, accepts the premise of a personal God.

Do I? I obviously hear various things about God, but few make much sense to me. Other than when I get involved in discussions about God here, the thought of God hardly ever enters my head. I find it puzzling that the thought of God enters anybody's head, to be honest. One would have expected the human race to have got beyond that by now. Maybe that is what you are saying, in your round-about way. The concept of God is purely hypothetical to me, so whether it be a "personal" God, a communal God, many gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, or any other gods you care to mention, I treat all those imposters just the same.

How can we discuss sin for example when some define it as a personal God being insulted and others like me know it is just the result of the fallen human condition preventing Man's conscious evolution?

I don't know what sin implies other than various degrees of naughtiness, and what the "fallen human condition" amounts to, I could not begin to guess. The term "conscious evolution" also leaves me scratching my head. The main problem seems to be that we have hardly any shared vocabulary.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nick wrote: This is why the New Covenant was introduced. It brought the help of the spirit to deter the influences of the self serving negative emotions responsible for the power of sin. It requires accepting the help of the Spirit the power of sin struggles against. The New Covenant offers a potential but only a few are open to in reality. The power of sin is too strong

I don't understand what any of that means, Nick, and I'm sure I can't be the only one. As you go to the trouble of of posting quite a lot of similar material, it seems reasonable to assume that you actually want to communicate your ideas to others. If that is the case, is it not important to you that what you say is understood?

Maybe I'm wrong; perhaps most people do understand. If so, please disregard my comments.

What interests me in what you say here -- said with complete sincerity of course -- is pretty central to my general theory about the loss of connection with *our own traditions* even to the point of no longer being able to understand some of the most essential, the most influential and operative ideas, that have been central to the Occident.

The ideas that Nick expresses (and he has his own twist on them influenced by those he often cites) would have been understood by nearly everyone just a few years back. They would have understood what the New Covenant was in relation to the Old Covenant and they would have understood that 'the Spirit' represented a new order of possibilities understood to have entered the historical and human picture with the advent of Jesus Christ.

What I find interesting is what happens to a person, in a person and also to a people, when they are severed-away from the capability of thinking in metaphysical terms. When the terms of metaphysics are no longer intelligible. Once the severing takes place it is then and from that point on that whole realms of understanding become incomprehensible. And once they are incomprehensible there is no longer any need to understand what all that was referred to as 'higher things' at one time actually means, or could mean.

So, there is a sort of New Man that is produced and who is an *outcome* of the processes of undermining a way of thinking, or the possibilities of thinking, that were once central and understood by all. That man is a 'horizontal' man, a man who lives solely on one plane of consciousness, for whom the 'vertical' dimension no longer exists.

And that man, then, when confronted with a reference to previous epistemological groundings, can only say: "I don't understand what any of that means". "And I'm sure I can't be the only one". Then he will state with complete sincerity that since he understands none of it, and since he is hearing it, that what it does mean must be carefully explained to him! "You seem so adamant in your desire to communicate. Cannot you make this intelligible to your reader?!?"

But the reader has been, let's say, inculcated into terms and parameters of perception that no longer include any sort of reference to ideas and concepts that require allusion and the encounter with symbolism that is a vehicle for meaning. And what was valued in that meaning is therefore impossible to value. So it is dismissed.

So the interesting thing is to think about what happens to a society, to a civilization, that becomes ungrounded, separated, unmoored from the sort of understanding that brought it (that civilization) into existence! It will sound like a cruel comment but this is what is meant by the advent of the Internal Barbarian. It is not now that the 'barbarian is at the gates' it is the barbarian that arises from within the cultural matrix who has been given a certain determining power.

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes again. . .

Here is a seemingly prophetic allusion by Kafka in a story called An Old Manuscript:

It looks if as there has been much neglect in the defense of our country. So far, we have not taken much care of it and have rather pursued our own work; but the recent events make us worried.

I own a shoemaker's workshop in the square in front of the imperial palace. As soon as I open my shop at dawn, I see all the streets occupied by men in arms. Yet, they are not our soldiers, but obviously nomads from the north. In some way that I do not comprehend, they have penetrated up to the capital, which is quite far from the border. Anyway, they are here; it seems that every morning they become more and more. According to their nature, they dwell in open air under the sky, for they abhor living in houses. They spend their time sharpening their swords, tapering the shaft of their arrows, exercising on the back of their horses. Of this square, quiet and always kept obsessively clean, they made a real stable.

We actually try, at times, to get out from our shops to remove at least the worst filth, yet that happens now less and less, as our effort is useless and puts us in the danger to be stumped by the wild horses or injured by the whips. Speaking with the nomads it is not possible. They do not know our language, and they barely have one of their own. Among themselves they communicate like jackdaws. Again and again one hears this cry of jackdaws.

Our lifestyle, our institutions, to them they are incomprehesible, as well as indifferent. Consequently, they show hostility also to any sign language: you can dislocate the jaw speaking, and dislocate your wrists gesticulating, but they do not understand you and they will never understand you. Often they make grimaces, they turn the white of their eyes, and foam swells out of their mouth, but by that it is not that they mean to say something or even frighten you; they do it because such is their nature. What they need, they take. One can not say they make use of violence: if they want something, everyone steps aside and lets everything go.

Also from my supplies they have taken away quite a bit. However, I cannot complain about it, when I look at the butcher right across for example. As soon as he brings his goods to the store, everything is snatched and devoured by the nomads. Even their horses eat meat; often a rider lies next to his horse and they both eat from the same piece of meat, each at one end. The butcher is scared and does not dare to interrupt his meat supplies. We understand the situation and collect money to support him. Were the nomads not getting meat, who knows what they would think of doing; yet, who knows what will occur to them anyways, even when they get meat every day.

Not long ago the butcher had a thought, that he could save himself the trouble of slaughtering, and brought in the morning a live ox. This must not happen again. I had to lie flat about an hour on the floor in the back of my workshop, and had to put all my clothes, blankets and cushions piled on me, so that I would not hear the roar of the ox, since the nomads were leaping from all sides, to tear away with their teeth pieces of its warm flesh. Silence had long settled before I dared to go out; as drinkers around a wine cask, they were laying, tired, around the remains of the ox.

Exactly at that time, I thought that I had seen the emperor in person in a window of the palace; otherwise he never comes out to these outer chambers, as he only lives in the innermost garden; but this time, so at least it seemed to me, at the window, his head bowed, he looked down at the hustle and bustle in front of his castle.

“What will it happen?” we all ask ourselves. “How long still will we have to bear this burden and torment? The imperial palace lured the nomads, but it does not know how to dispel them again. The gate remains closed; the guard, which before would always march in and out in a festive manner, stays behind barred windows. To us craftsmen and tradesmen is entrusted the salvation of the country; but we are not up to such a task; neither have we ever boasted being capable of it. It is a misunderstanding; and because of this we will perish.”

_______________________________________

Harbal writes: Do I? I obviously hear various things about God, but few make much sense to me. Other than when I get involved in discussions about God here, the thought of God hardly ever enters my head. I find it puzzling that the thought of God enters anybody's head, to be honest. One would have expected the human race to have got beyond that by now. Maybe that is what you are saying, in your round-about way. The concept of God is purely hypothetical to me, so whether it be a "personal" God, a communal God, many gods, Greek gods, Roman gods, or any other gods you care to mention, I treat all those imposters just the same.

Once the 'conceptual pathway no longer exists, the former reference (to God, to higher metaphysics, etc.) then is genuinely perceived as unintelligible. It cannot any longer even be understood. It is am idea void of content. At that point there is genuine puzzlement as to why anyone would even bother with such an absurd idea!

Nick writes: How can we discuss sin for example when some define it as a personal God being insulted and others like me know it is just the result of the fallen human condition preventing Man's conscious evolution?

Harbal responds

:I don't know what sin implies other than various degrees of naughtiness, and what the "fallen human condition" amounts to, I could not begin to guess. The term "conscious evolution" also leaves me scratching my head. The main problem seems to be that we have hardly any shared vocabulary.

And here the notion of 'sin', which requires an inner, moral platform of understanding, can only be understood as 'naughtiness'. The man is incapbale of grasping what, at one time, the fallen condition of man referred to. Thus the possibility of a comparative mental order shows itself to have become dissolved. Sin becomes a meaningless idea.

Conscious evolution -- evolution of consciousness -- conscious awakening: all become similarly incomprehensible.

O brave new world, that has such people in 't!”

Aldous Huxley developed the notion of the conscious engineering of a dumbded-down society in his (ironic) novel Brave New World.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The New Covenant is the advent of Jesus interpreted as the Christ whose sacrifice atones for sins. Since God chose to be incarnated this is a gracious act of God's towards us and moreover we cannot be freed from the afore-said 'sin' unless we accept that only God's grace can do it for us. It's about guilt . The modern idea is that there are no sins and we need to look at moral evil the same way we regard natural evil.

Nick is medieval and he sincerely wants us to believe that sin exists and that grace is what will save us from sin.

Seen in another way -- symbolically (and this is not the way that a believer may actually see it) -- the symbol can be unraveled and interpreted differently.

The human condition, the condition of conscious beings trapped in bodies and trapped into a giant material and biological machinery, is a rather terrible condition when seen according to certain eyes. But to see it that way, indeed, requires those eyes: that is a person who can see on other than a horizontal plane. One of the easiest and most direct means to understand a non-horizontal frame-of-mind (the possibility of thought) is to read poetry. Since it is a similar *way of seeing* that is needed to see from one level to another level.

It is true that the sacrifice of Jesus was understood to be the event that opened the door to human redemption. It is understood to be a specific even in time. But there are other levels to it too if it is taken at the level of symbolism and allegory. In some obvious sense *the world* will not, and cannot, ever change. The biological world and the material world -- our world -- will go on & on & on for millions of years even when we humans have passed away.

So the whole idea, the Christian idea, that the 'world' will be perfected and transformed into some other sort of world, that idea cannot any longer be taken to be 'real'. But the notion of the transformation of consciousness, the possibility of conscious evolution, that idea is valid and considerable as such. And the internal work that could allow such an awakening or evolution is as real as it ever was -- if it can be grasped and understood. But if it can't, well, there is not much more to say.

I wonder if it is correct to say 'it is about guilt' when it is really about remorse: the realization of the loss of opportunity, the realization that our tendency to deceive ourselves when our desires and our self-assertion overpower our 'higher' and better awareness becomes impossible to avoid. That is part of 'moral awakening'.

Your introduction of the word Medieval is appropriate to the thrust of your general argument, I think. The implication being that we are now on the other side of all that and have a correct stance in a modern perspective. I read a good deal and I can assure you that there are may who are not at all convinced that that is the case! (Edward Feser being one example!)

[Alexis Jacobi]

A musical tid-bit for the dubious among us.

[Harbal]

Aldous Huxley developed the notion of the conscious engineering of a dumbded-down society in his (ironic) novel Brave New World.

That's the answer then: I don't understand what Nick is on about because I've been dumbed down.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Aldous Huxley developed the notion of the conscious engineering of a dumbded-down society in his (ironic) novel Brave New World.

That's the answer then: I don't understand what Nick is on about because I've been dumbed down.

I regret to inform you that that is exactly the case. All the concepts that Nick refers to are, literally, unintelligible to you.

And you are one among millions and millions who are in the same or similar situation. These are cultural and civilizational outcomes (as I tirelessly repeat). It is not mean personally so don't take it as such.

[Harbal]

I regret to inform you that that is exactly the case. All the concepts that Nick refers to are, literally, unintelligible to you.

Please don't have any regrets, I don't have enough regard for your opinion for it to be of any consequence. But, yes, all the concepts that Nick refers to are unintelligible to me, which is exactly what I started out by saying.

And you are one among millions and millions who are in the same or similar situation.

Well this is actually what I wanted to know, and it does put my mind at rest, because I was a bit worried that my failure to understand what Nick was talking about might be because of some cognitive deficiency in me. So I thank you for that.

[Belinda]

Nick believes in sin. Sin is not the same as natural evil. The notion of sin depends on the notion that human nature is divided into 'higher' and 'lower' natures. This notion is medieval and contrary to modern European thought which views human nature as related to animal nature which is neither good or bad.

Well I still have no idea what Nick is actually striving for. Is it about living your life in a particular mental state? Is it about how we live together as society. Is it all just lofty sounding meaninglessness, and Nick casting himself in a fantasy role of some kind of tortured prophet. Is his passion genuine, do you think?

Nick promotes the medieval idea of human nature that we are sinful because we are not angelic but human i.e. part physical /animal .Original sin is built into the human condition from our physical/ animal natures(demiurge).

(My comment:In order to control people by subtle persuasion the people have to believe they are guilty . Whereupon the religion offers them a way out of their guilt i.e. belief and observance of what the priests tell you to believe and observe.)

I understand Nick wants the religious power structure to be free of the secular power structure which he calls The Beast. Actually I am not sure this has ever been done, except by very liberal and dissenting religions such as the Quakers or the Unitarians.

I am sure Nick is genuine. After all why would he not be genuine?

[Harbal]

I am sure Nick is genuine. After all why would he not be genuine?

I dare say he is, but it doesn't really matter. It's not as if I'm about to follow him down the path he's on.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I regret to inform you that that is exactly the case. All the concepts that Nick refers to are, literally, unintelligible to you.

Please don't have any regrets, I don't have enough regard for your opinion for it to be of any consequence. But, yes, all the concepts that Nick refers to are unintelligible to me, which is exactly what I started out by saying.

Why is it that you have no regard for my opinions? Because they are critical? Whose opinions do you have regard for and whose opinions are consequential? (Some writer, artist of intellectual).

I was actually going to edit out "I regret to inform you". I do not in fact regret informing you and I know that you will have no other way except but to take what I say personally, as if I am insulting your intelligence and condescending to you. If you made the choice not to see it like that, then you would better understand. This has nothing to do with your intelligence, it has to do with your background education. And when I say *you* I mean all of us. My largest critical effort is to point out a general descent that all of us suffer from. It especially has been accelerating in the postwar (post Sixties) and has been written about extensively by many many people.

For example The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. Her critique of American education is applicable to Europe too.

And you are one among millions and millions who are in the same or similar situation.

Harbal wrote: Well this is actually what I wanted to know, and it does put my mind at rest, because I was a bit worried that my failure to understand what Nick was talking about might be because of some cognitive deficiency in me. So I thank you for that.

The very least I can do is to put your mind at ease.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am sure Nick is genuine. After all why would he not be genuine?

I dare say he is, but it doesn't really matter. It's not as if I'm about to follow him down the path he's on.

Since you cannot, even slightly, understand what he is talking about, you certainly could not follow him or his path. Only when you actually understood the terms and concepts he is working with could you then make any sort of reasoned decision.

And this is just what I have been talking about: Once the capability of understanding certain ideas and concepts has been undermined, and the conceptual pathway disturbed or broken, those ideas seem outrageous and ridiculous -- unworthy of consideration by a sensible person! And they are dismissed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am sure Nick is genuine. After all why would he not be genuine?

What an odd question. It is the wrong question really. People can be entirely *genuine* and be totally off the mark. This does not have to do with personal genuineness. It has to do with a set of concepts and whether they are truthful and accurate in outlining a general situation we, we human beings, are in.

Harbal has indicated that he cannot understand, in any sense, some of the principle concepts that Nick deals in (as well as those Nick admires and quotes). Therefore, the issue is why is that? How has this come about? And what are the ramifications of that incapacity to grasp those foundational concepts?

Nick and those who work with those concepts and ideas have and hold to a perceptual and interpretive platform, and the one that Nick is aligned with is of a traditional order. Modernity, in many ways, and for many reasons, rejects traditional metaphysical concepts. Why modernity does this can be broached as a topic. Some of the reasons have a certain validity. That is, a thinking person will see the validity and can defend those reasons. But also a thinking person will see that modernity, solely because it is modern, is not necessarily 'right' in all its determinations.

[Belinda]

I am sure Nick is genuine. After all why would he not be genuine?

I dare say he is, but it doesn't really matter. It's not as if I'm about to follow him down the path he's on.

Since you cannot, even slightly, understand what he is talking about, you certainly could not follow him or his path. Only when you actually understood the terms and concepts he is working with could you then make any sort of reasoned decision.

And this is just what I have been talking about: Once the capability of understanding certain ideas and concepts has been undermined, and the conceptual pathway disturbed or broken, those ideas seem outrageous and ridiculous -- unworthy of consideration by a sensible person! And they are dismissed.

In my experience the conceptual pathway is not inherent but learned . I can't lose the conceptual pathway if I never learned it in the first place. It's true that general respect for education is inculcated by the prevailing culture via significant others in early childhood as any primary school teacher will agree. If respect for education has to be learned by children of school age it's done with as much entertainment and playfulness as may be. Novels and cartoons are quite helpful.

A culture of understanding may become materialistic as has happened due to regimes' scorn for academia and its knock on effect in education policies. Even scientists are not officially taught philosophy of science as there isn't time to learn it. Keep up the good fight!

The field of human ability has not lost its potential fertility, because Lamarckism is not true.

BTW my recent try at theodicy by clustering demiurge, satan, and trickster did not work for the reason you gave earlier. The problem of evil remains in place.