Christianity

[Harbal]

It's true there are fewer sins nowadays.

Well we will just have to look harder for them.

[Nick_A]

This is one reason why I always have spoken in terms of 'levels' and 'degrees'. By your definition: man is incapable of religious life. So what results from the position that you take? That only a rare and unusual sort of person can fulfill the demands. But that pertains to one 'level'. There is a whole range of things that have been developed for the 'average man' who, according to your definitions, cannot ever be a (real) Christian. That is why I refer to 'cultural paideia'. Once, there was a general education given to those average people, incapable of being (true) Christians. Certainly it involved the 3Rs but also a general moral and ethical training. What else could be given to people who are, as you indicate, incapable of higher spiritual and religious life? Why ask more of them? Why ask what cannot be given?

Now we have to turn to the position of someone like Immanuel Can who will fundamentally disagree with you. He will say that *even a little child* can be 'saved'. And if the little uncomprehending child can be 'saved' then all people, simply by getting down on their knees and praying to Jesus, not only can be 'saved' but are saved. According to Immanuel it might -- hypothetically -- take a lifetime to *be reconstructed* (a central tenet of his view: a reconstruction carried out by a transcendental spirit) or to *reconstruct oneself* into that Ideal Christian ("You must become perfect"), but no one is excluded.

Buddhism has become, for the West, a logical evolution of the Christian form. When examined, the position of Belinda and Attofish is simply an ethic of 'acting right'. It does not actually involve a spiritual and regenerating (metaphysical, transcendental) external power. Except that in Atto's case he describes a rather complex intervention by metaphysical entity. Nevertheless, the only 'point' of the intervention is to get the subject (him) to 'act right'. And that seems to be all there is to Christianity.

A Buddhist could do just as much and would have an even more developed ethical system with which to work. Buddhism can become very non-metaphysical and exclusively geared toward 'proper behavior' and certainly to 'proper attitude'. It is, one might propose, the perfect post-Christian semi-religious (or is it also aesthetic?) alternative and evolution of those Christians who can 'no longer believe'.


The question is not very relevant. If you want to encounter people who *are* just go outside and mingle with them. They are simply getting on as best they are able.

Plato provides a good description for educating the whole person: mind, body, and spirit. Yet we see it doesn't work. Simone Weil was a greatly admired Marxist and atheist. She learned from her dedication to truth why it cannot work. The collective fallen human being prevents it. She wrote:

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace."

What is the future of paideia without the help of grace leading to "understanding?"

How might one recognise the difference, if any, between emotional sensibility on one hand, and "a grace leading to "understsanding" " on the other hand?

Gurdjieff told Ouspensky: RELIGION IS DOING; a man does not merely think his religion or feel it, he ‘lives’ his religion as much as he is able, otherwise it is not religion but fantasy or philosophy. Whether he likes it or not he shows his attitude towards religion by his actions and he can show his attitude only by his actions. Therefore if his actions are opposed to those which are demanded by a given religion he cannot assert that he belongs to that religion.

Emotional sensibility is concerned with what we "know". Religion, as it is being described, is concerned with what we understand expressed by what we "do". Man's being is defined by hypocrisy. We know one thing and do another. It is only through grace that offers the possibility to feel the value of sacred principles with the whole of ourselves from a higher conscious perspective and be able to practice Christianity.

[Nick_A]

Alex

I C wrote:

This is what Jesus Himself was referring to, when He said, "You must be born again." That is, what every person needs, in order to become any different from what he or she is, is an actual "dying" to the old person, and a reconstitution of being by the action of God Himself. He needs a total reconstruction, not merely some set of laws and prohibitions to follow while remaining essentially the same person he or she is. And there is no alternative to that, He said: "You must be born again." It's not an optional thing. There are no alternatives. For a person to become other than she is, or he is, she or he must undergo and actual change of nature conducted by the hand of God Himself. And absent undergoing such a change, the whole process will remain as obscure and seemingly-impossible as locating where the wind is blowing from (that's exactly the analogy He used in speaking on that occasion, to Nicodemus, in John 3). It will simply remain a permanent mystery how anybody could ever be other than they are.

As you know I disagree with I Cs belief in a personal God governing our universe. I believe that the universe is the body of God. But he seems to understand what it means to be "born again." What does it mean to you? Why is it essential for Christianity? Does the fist verse of Amazing Grace have meaning for you?

Amazing grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now I'm found
Was blind but now I see

[Harry Baird]

Does it seem to the rest of you guys that this thread has gotten kind of bogged down? It seems to be stuck in a sort of loop. Something like this:

Nick_A: After all of these pages, what is the definition of a Christian?

Immanuel Can: [Sticking his hand up straight and bouncing excitedly on his chair] Ooo, ooo, sir, I know the answer to this one! Pick me! Pick me!

Alexis Jacobi: Shun the evangelist! Now, does anybody remember the good old days, when we fed children paella, the gays were all closeted, and... Hey! You kids! Get off my dang lawn!

Harbal: Whatever you guys are talking about makes about as much sense to me as a gerbil on acid.

Alexis Jacobi: Acid: yes, that's what I'm talking about. Modernity is being eroded by acids.

Belinda: Gerbils are eroding modernity with their penchant for acid. Don't worry, Harbal, you're not hallucinating.

Dubious: I once had a gerbil as a pet. No matter how much acid I gave it, I never could see any value in metaphysics - nor what that even means.

Nick_A: So, do we have a definition of "Christian" yet?

[...and so on and so on...]

[henry quirk]

Does it seem to the rest of you guys that this thread has gotten kind of bogged down? It seems to be stuck in a sort of loop. Something like this:

Nick_A: After all of these pages, what is the definition of a Christian?

Immanuel Can: [Sticking his hand up straight and bouncing excitedly on his chair] Ooo, ooo, sir, I know the answer to this one! Pick me! Pick me!

Alexis Jacobi: Shun the evangelist! Now, does anybody remember the good old days, when we fed children paella, the gays were all closeted, and... Hey! You kids! Get off my dang lawn!

Harbal: Whatever you guys are talking about makes about as much sense to me as a gerbil on acid.

Alexis Jacobi: Acid: yes, that's what I'm talking about. Modernity is being eroded by acids.

Belinda: Gerbils are eroding modernity with their penchant for acid. Don't worry, Harbal, you're not hallucinating.

Dubious: I once had a gerbil as a pet. No matter how much acid I gave it, I never could see any value in metaphysics - nor what that even means.

Nick_A: So, do we have a definition of "Christian" yet?

[...and so on and so on...]

Harry wins:

We can all go home now.

[Harry Baird]

Good to see you're still around, hq. I had been worrying that *you* had gone home already.

[Dubious]

Dubious: I once had a gerbil as a pet. No matter how much acid I gave it, I never could see any value in metaphysics - nor what that even means.

Oh, I think I know what it means. The dictionary meaning is clear enough being merely a realm of speculation upon which we never cease to speculate and twist things as we wish to see it. Many times that wish is only temporary. It should be obvious too that philosophy on philosophy forums is only a game played for amusement, a mental soccer game...which you also seem to enjoy! Some games are clearly more interesting than others per number of pages posted.

It's the kind of play where questions are meant to engender more questions, certainly not to finalize any. It is argument for argument's sake; nothing more. If it weren't for god and objective truths there would be almost nothing to talk about!

[Harry Baird]

[Reordering quotes a little]

Oh, I think I know what [metaphysics] means. The dictionary meaning is clear enough being merely a realm of speculation upon which we never cease to speculate and twist things as we wish to see it. Many times that wish is only temporary.

It's the kind of play where questions are meant to engender more questions, certainly not to finalize any. It is argument for argument's sake; nothing more. If it weren't for god and objective truths there would be almost nothing to talk about!

Well, I suggest that that's a... less charitable... reading of "metaphysics" than is fair, at least when metaphysics is done right. At its best, metaphysical thinking and reasoning provides the clarity by which to live life well, or at least to understand the basis on which one makes one's life choices, and how to become more consistent in those choices.

It should be obvious too that philosophy on philosophy forums is only a game played for amusement, a mental soccer game...which you also seem to enjoy! Some games are clearly more interesting than others per number of pages posted.

While it's probably true, as you say, that a lot of posting on philosophy forums such as this one - including my own posting - is "a game played for amusement", I do also take metaphysics seriously. I haven't - in my current spate of posting - posted much metaphysically-inclined content, which is probably why it seems open to you to conclude that, philosophically, I'm purely about amusement and enjoyment.

[henry quirk]

Good to see you're still around, hq. I had been worrying that *you* had gone home already.

Me? Nah...I'm a long-hauler...I got 60 years to go before I get home.

And: it's good to see you too, Harry.

[Harry Baird]

I'm a long-hauler...I got 60 years to go before I get home.

Huh. Then you're either a young 'un (at least, younger than I expected) or preternaturally long-lived.

[henry quirk]

I'm a long-hauler...I got 60 years to go before I get home.

Huh. Then you're either a young 'un (at least, younger than I expected) or preternaturally long-lived.

I'm gonna be 60 next month: that means I've got 60 to go.

I'm always middle-aged (and immortal [I intend to outlive everything]).

[Harry Baird]

I'm gonna be 60 next month: that means I've got 60 to go.

I'm always middle-aged (and technically immortal [I intend to outlive everything]).

Aha. Well might we call you Half-life Henry then: no matter how old you are, you've always lived exactly half your life.

Metaphysicians, beware: here lie dragons.

[henry quirk]

I'm gonna be 60 next month: that means I've got 60 to go.

I'm always middle-aged (and technically immortal [I intend to outlive everything]).

Aha. Well might we call you Half-life Henry then: no matter how old you are, you've always lived exactly half your life.

Metaphysicians, beware: here lie dragons.

Call it Zeno's Longevity.
still gotta sleep, though...later, folks

[Harry Baird]

Call it Zeno's Longevity.
still gotta sleep, though...later, folks

Aha. I think I now have an inkling as to the technique. Awaken for an hour; sleep for an hour, and - presto - one is awarded two more hours of life. Repeat ad nauseam for endless middle age.

[Dubious]

It's the kind of play where questions are meant to engender more questions, certainly not to finalize any. It is argument for argument's sake; nothing more. If it weren't for god and objective truths there would be almost nothing to talk about!

Well, I suggest that that's a... less charitable... reading of "metaphysics" than is fair, at least when metaphysics is done right. At its best, metaphysical thinking and reasoning provides the clarity by which to live life well, or at least to understand the basis on which one makes one's life choices, and how to become more consistent in those choices.

If you think metaphysics can provide clarity to live life well, I certainly wouldn't try to negate it. For me, to live life well is a matter of custom, morals and ethics; qualities which are not completely precluded from metaphysics though I have no idea what type of metaphysic clarifies the complexities inherent in these very human operations except as a kind of mandate, however temporary, to establish its conditions. I'm more in tune with the ancient Chinese philosophers who considered so-called ultimate questions metaethically in the sense of "what should be done", in the context of our existence here and the choices we make. But that's a separate subject.

I haven't - in my current spate of posting - posted much metaphysically-inclined content, which is probably why it seems open to you to conclude that, philosophically, I'm purely about amusement and enjoyment.

You misconstrue. It was a general statement, which also includes me, as to what philosophy forums are really for or default to most of the time. It's simply a more specialized social media outlet to which anyone can post his or her thoughts regardless of how absurd or brilliant. People love sports whether physical or mental; philosophy is merely one instance of it testing the gymnastic power between different mentalities.