Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:15 am I don't find there to be general hostility towards Christianity.
Oh, there certainly is.

That is, toward real Christianity. You're not marginalized if you're nominal and don't really let it affect your decisions or your behaviour, and so long as you never share the fact of your actual belief with anyone; but if you do, you're pilloried immediately...at least in any public context.

Christians are supposed to wear their faith like underwear: everybody might have some, but it's not polite to bring it out in public. :wink:
If you were to ask people at random on the streets of Western Europe and the whole continent of America, I think a majority would identify as being Christian.
Well, only because that's nominal and shallow. Perfectly safe. No more substantive than saying, "I'm a human being."

You'll know, I'm sure, that historically, especially in places like America and the UK, there was a time when saying "I'm a Christian" was roughly taken as equivalent to saying, "I'm a citizen of the country," or "I'm civilized," or "I behave generally decently." Its opposite was something akin to "pagan," or "barbarian." Everybody who was a decent bloke went to church twice a year, and if asked, anybody would say, "I'm a Christian."

Shakespeare, for example, has a character in Twelfth Night who says, "Methinks sometimes I have no more wit than a Christian or an ordinary man has..." He means that "Christian" and "ordinary man" are equivalent expressions, as they were, in his day. And even today, you hear people still say things like, "England is a Christian country." And it means that, regardless of the particular beliefs and convictions of Englishmen today, the country remains operating vaguely under a kind of Judeo-Christian moral constraint...and no more.

But that's not real Christianity, obviously; that's nominalism. And so long as the word is kept on that level there's no opposition. How could there be, since it means almost nothing.

But what you're not allowed to say is, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, and the Judge of the Earth," or such things. You're also not allowed to say, "I believe He is the way, the truth and the life; and that there is salvation in no one else," even though the Bible tells us flatly that Christians must believe these things.

So even in this nominally "Christian" country, any deep faith has to stay at the vague, inconsequential level. If it rises to any level of reality, and affects a person's actual conduct and values, he or she will run into conflict immediately.
Church of England Christianity is what I had limited exposure to as I grew up, and although it always struck me as being uninteresting, there is very little about it that would cause a hostile reaction in any reasonable person.

That is exactly right. And it exactly illustrates what I've been saying. The C of E is, in many places (but not all, I hasten to say) like a shell on the beach: very pretty, sometimes, but nothing lives in it.
Your variety of Christianity, however, seems very harsh and quite disturbing, not to mention stuffed full of prejudices of its own, and it does suffer the disdain of reasonable people; quite rightly so in my opinion.
Thank you. We were told by Jesus Christ that it would be exactly so. The world would hate us, and call us all kinds of names because we actually stood for His name; and only compromisers and phonies would be loved by the world.

Of course, being disliked is no proof of faithfulness, I freely admit. One can be obnoxious in oneself, and I'm sure I'm capable of that. But being accepted and liked by the world is, in fact, proof positive of Christian unfaithfulness. So perhaps it gives me some hope I may be doing exactly the right thing. And in either case, it's exactly as things should be.
Perhaps it's the way you use Biblical quotes that prompts the negative reaction you claim to always receive. You often seem to call upon them to reinforce some implied threat or other.
Not at all. In fact, I generally quote Scripture to emphasize things like salvation, not things like judgment.

But recently? Only because I was engaged in a discussion in which my interlocutor was bluntly accusing God Himself of injustice and of unsuitability to judge. So he needed to understand that the Bible was very clear on the point. And I'm sure I put that beyond all doubt, so we can return to the less frightening things the Bible has to say.
I have learnt to see the funny side of your style of persuasion, but I'm afraid I appear to be one of the very few people here who have managed to achieve that. :)
One doesn't have to lose one's sense of humour, I think, even when one is discussing serious matters, sometimes.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:10 pmBut what you're not allowed to say is, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, and the Judge of the Earth," or such things. You're also not allowed to say, "I believe He is the way, the truth and the life; and that there is salvation in no one else," even though the Bible tells us flatly that Christians must believe these things.
That idea, as you well know, is in fact no longer tenable. If you do say something like that you will say it because you are invested in Hebrew Idea Imperialism. And what you are called to do, as the early Hebrews were called to do, is to act aggressively and in a warlike manner, using any and all means at your disposal, to undermine the religious traditions of those nations and cultures which have a distinct and different way of conceiving god.

The Bible, both the OT and the NT, are built on the foundation of the idea of a militant, absolutely intolerant god who demands destruction and annihilation of all that *He* is said to hate. However, no one on this forum, and most people today, could not even if you demanded them to, see the world in this way. If they actually understood what is being advocated, and where it leads, they would desist because of the ethical and moral implications!

So what I think most people on this forum, and those participating in this thread and conversation, are opposed to in you is not so much you (your person) but rather that the ideology you represent and recommend is understood to be unethical and immoral. First, they have noticed the effect of this immorality as an act against their own spirit. In fact their 'free will' as thinking persons, as thoughtful and concerned people. You cannot take this idea in. They can only be seen by you as being in fundamental error and an error that, as you continually say, will land them in Eternal Merciless Punishment of a sort that is beyond any comprehension.

Now it is absolutely true that all Christian traditions, all of them, are based in this intolerant position. As you pointed out (that Catholics must believe) extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. And it is also true, and part of the foundation of Christianity, that the original idea was expressed in the Jewish torah by a god who, in fact, demanded genocidal destruction of other peoples.

Once this has been understood -- that this is the base upon which the belief-system yo are invested in -- it is then that you will grasp the core of the opposition that you receive here. Again: on a philosophy forum and not a forum dedicated to specific religious ideology.

So the real question here is How could Christianity be saved or relieved from the impetus and intolerance with which it has been invested? It does not matter to me, perosnally, that this is incomprehensible to you and impossible as an idea-undertaking. But here on this forum there are people who have advanced a great deal further -- morally and ethically -- than you are capable. You cannot even recognize that this is the case. You do not recognize -- you cannot recognize! -- the moral issue.

Now the Christian sects will go on in their struggles to hold to the definitions which hold them together. The cultural and religious struggles within the United States will go on (in distinction to Europe America is still an actively Christian country though its Christianity are all strange American hybrids and American innovations). It is also true that Pentecostalism and other Evangelical sects will continue to spread in the 'global south' as they are now spreading. So the Third Millenia will continue to be one of the spread of Christianity as well as the spread of Islam -- but again mostly in the global south.

But this is a philosophy forum and, technically, should be dedicated to *more advanced thinking* and more profound analysis. The reason you gain no ground here is because you represent backward steps.

The trick is to discover, and to live within, a renovated mode of religiousness. I use the term religion in the most allusive sense: an expression of what we feel is really real and really important about life itself.

You Immanuel Can are completely outside of even the possibility of having such a conversation.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:10 pm

Christians are supposed to wear their faith like underwear: everybody might have some, but it's not polite to bring it out in public. :wink:
Who told you you are a Christian?

Stop telling others what you think they should believe, and then deny you are doing it, when all you do is believe what you personally want to believe, and only hear what you personally want to hear.

You can never experience yourself as an objective thing, but an objective thing is all you can know.

FAITH ...complete trust or confidence in some thing aka an object.

In other words, have complete trust in a slab of concrete. As every concept is fixed in stone.

Words fail. And is why the Buddha laughed out loud. And so did Jesus for that matter.

Serious laugher is the key to salvation, whatever that is. Everybody might have some, opinion that is, but it's not polite to bring it out in public.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:00 am
Nick_A wrote:What is a Christ like spirit?
Lacewing wrote: Being loving
Being forgiving
Having compassion
Being humble rather than being full of yourself and your supposed ‘rightness’
Being generous
I prefer the fighting talk of Jesus who buggered the money changers in the Temple and told his disciples he came with a sword.
Well, I like that fierce side of Jesus too... but people don't seem to have as much trouble fighting what they oppose. It's the other qualities attributed to Jesus that I think offer people an example of 'higher being'.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:10 pm
Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:15 am Church of England Christianity is what I had limited exposure to as I grew up, and although it always struck me as being uninteresting, there is very little about it that would cause a hostile reaction in any reasonable person.

That is exactly right. And it exactly illustrates what I've been saying. The C of E is, in many places (but not all, I hasten to say) like a shell on the beach: very pretty, sometimes, but nothing lives in it.
Well if I were pressed to have an attitude about Christianity, I would have to express a preference for whichever variety had the least negative impact on my life, and the C of E falls nicely into that slot.

I still say it's the views you express that causes the trouble, IC, and the fact that you call yourself Christian has nothing to do with it. The term "Christianity", in itself, certainly doesn't prompt any ill feelings in me.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:12 pm Is this a Christ like attitude apparently promoting a divisive attitude? Isn't there enough friction in the average family?. Do you think the average secular philosopher would welcome discussion on this idea or just strive to practice condemnation? From Matthew 10:
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
Is this what you imagine you are somehow uniquely doing?

We're ALL overturning tables here!

If you want to have discussions beyond doing that, you must be able to join in such discussions and answer questions that are put to you in response to your claims (which you failed to do again, yet you want to ask more questions of others). If you're just going to bring all your obsessions and projections to the table, then there cannot be a broader discussion. It remains narrowly, all about you. Gloating about your association with God has no value to other people... other than demonstrating the twisted dark potential of such beliefs.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:10 pm
Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:15 am Your variety of Christianity, however, seems very harsh and quite disturbing, not to mention stuffed full of prejudices of its own, and it does suffer the disdain of reasonable people; quite rightly so in my opinion.
Thank you. We were told by Jesus Christ that it would be exactly so. The world would hate us, and call us all kinds of names because we actually stood for His name
Today, Christians have become a majority. The world responds with disgust to twisted self-serving narcissists who claim their unique and superior association with God. This brand of self-described 'Christian' often starts cults, or parades across philosophy forums to serve their need to position themselves on an imaginary throne above crowds of lesser humans.

Metaphorical crucifixion and martyrdom are the typical themes used by such 'Christians' to dismiss the reasonable responses people express over self-righteous deceptive claims and practices done in the name of God. Such distorted representation can continue under a god-cloak of infallibility which is probably the worst evil that has spread through humankind.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:10 pm ...only compromisers and phonies would be loved by the world.

...being accepted and liked by the world is, in fact, proof positive of Christian unfaithfulness. So perhaps it gives me some hope I may be doing exactly the right thing.
:lol: You're serious. Humankind is oblivious to where love should be directed... and only lesser 'Christians' who aren't as pure and good and right and true as you receive the love from the foolish. Being disliked is a sign that you're doing it right. :lol:

You are well-practiced in protecting your demented delusion and behavior. That's the height of what you demonstrate. Your interpretations and projections of 'God' are actually of you.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:36 pmWell if I were pressed to have an attitude about Christianity, I would have to express a preference for whichever variety had the least negative impact on my life, and the C of E falls nicely into that slot.
Here, I submit, we have a perfect statement of ideological (dis-) orientation of the perfect Occidental postmodern man. The statement, it is true, sums it up, but to better understand there needs to be background provided. Contextualization. That is, a description of the causal chain that led to this man's appearance.

The context: England. One of the most important civilizations that the world has produced at the core of which, for its duration, the Church has been an integral part. There is no man of letters, until one gets to the postmodern period, who through or wrote or acted outside of the general field of the Christian church. The Church, and Christianity (despite Immanuel's statements to the contrary) make up the foundation of this civilization.

The function of Church? To define metaphysical bedrock. And to then construct upon that metaphysical bedrock all of the institutions of that culture certainly, but also the general paideia of attitude and outlook that is to be taught to children. Literally, all of this *informs* the child. It is not *as if* men define themselves through what I am loosely calling Church here but rather as really and truly how human beings define themselves in time and in space. A church, a religion, must reflect and must express the cosmos and in this sense the cosmic will. And all theological definitions are condensations of the thought and realization of all those men who have participated in this social and cultural construction. And Church was more really than some edifice on the town square, it was actually a representation of man himself, or what those specific men conceived of as being 'most important' and in this sense most real. The sacred rituals were enactments in which all people participated with a unified heart. Idea, sentiment, aspiration, valuation -- all of this expressed through the binding ritualistic actions.

So if we were, let's say, to invent a religion and imagined it among a people on some other planet, what would we imagine this to be? Remember: religion is to express what is ultimately conceived as 'the reason we live', 'why we are here', 'what is right & proper to do and not to do'. It therefore defines positive values -- what should be encouraged and as I say taught to children, but also what must be discouraged shunned as well as repressed and punished. What would we teach our children?

With this Postmodern Man -- here I brazenly employ Harbal in my cruel portraiture -- nearly all connection with cultural history has been dissolved. It is as if none of it even existed. All around him are 'ruins', the empty shells that hold no content, that even when looked at directly evoke no sense of recognition. There is no one at home even to do the seeing-realizing that might have occurred at other points in time. Washed up on the shores of the present this man does not even recognize himself as shipwrecked.

*My life* -- now what is that? Essentially, it is simply a rather dreary expanse of time. What possible ambitions exist for Postmodern Man? This man has been dis-informed, emptied of content, turned upside-down and shaken, and inside is a vacuum.

The 'slot' or 'groove' that is sought, in which to exist and to live & to die, is one that makes no demands of any sort on this postmodern exemplary. For after all What is possible to describe as worthy of pursuit? Pursuit has ended.

In my way of conceiving things this is one of the outcomes of having 'horizons erased'.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 7:11 pm
With this Postmodern Man -- here I brazenly employ Harbal in my cruel portraiture
:|
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 7:26 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 7:11 pm
With this Postmodern Man -- here I brazenly employ Harbal in my cruel portraiture
:|
It's all of us Harbal. I always make this as clear as I can. We are all *outcomes* or these shifts. This is what postmodernism is. It is a sort of condition.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Again, antidotes . . .

From Men Among The Ruins by Julius Evola:
“For the authentic revolutionary conservative, what really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and institutions have been particular expressions, adequate for a specific period of time and in a specific geographical area.”
― Julius Evola
“Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the centre of which is constituted of technology, science, production, "productivity," and "consumption." And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence—then we are not even close to what is essential...”
― Julius Evola
“There is a superior unity of all those who despite all, fight in different parts of the world the same battle, lead the same revolt, and are the bearers of the same intangible Tradition. These forces appear to be scattered and isolated in the world, and yet are inexorably connected by a common essence that is meant to preserve the absolute ideal of the Imperium and to work for its return.”
― Julius Evola
“Contrary to what the bourgeois and liberal polemics claim, the warrior idea may not be reduced to materialism, nor is it synonymous with the exaltation of the brutal use of strength and destructive violence. Rather, the calm, conscious, and planned development of the inner being and a code of ethics; love of distance; hierarchy; order; the faculty of subordinating the emotional and individualistic element of one’s self to higher goals and principles, especially in the name of honor and duty – these are the elements of the warrior idea, and they act as the foundations of a specific “style” that has largely been lost.”
― Julius Evola
From The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guénon:
“This now leads us to elucidate more precisely the error of the idea that the majority should make the law, because, even though this idea must remain theoretical - since it does not correspond to an effective reality - it is necessary to explain how it has taken root in the modern outlook, to which of its tendencies it corresponds, and which of them - at least in appearance - it satisfies. Its most obvious flaw is the one we have just mentioned: the opinion of the majority cannot be anything but an expression of incompetence, whether this be due to lack of intelligence or to ignorance pure and simple; certain observations of 'mass psychology' might be quoted here, in particular the widely known fact that the aggregate of mental reactions aroused among the component individuals of a crowd crystallizes into a sort of general psychosis whose level is not merely not that of the average, but actually that of the lowest elements present.”
― René Guénon
It may be of interest to some who read and write here that the so-called Alt-Right came into being because of the influence of thinkers like Evola and Guénon. It attempted to define a sort of 'revolutionary conservatism' that could hardly be understood by most. The so-called Dissident Right is also informed by people who are thinking along these same lines and influenced by the same philosophers largely.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:10 pmBut what you're not allowed to say is, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, and the Judge of the Earth," or such things. You're also not allowed to say, "I believe He is the way, the truth and the life; and that there is salvation in no one else," even though the Bible tells us flatly that Christians must believe these things.
That idea, as you well know,...
Well, given that you don't even "well know" what a "Christian" is, since you have no definition, not surprisingly, I don't "know" any of the things you allege I "know." :D
The Bible, both the OT and the NT, are built on the foundation of the idea of a militant, absolutely intolerant god...
Let's suppose we accept that claim -- I don't, but let's play "make believe," since you're doing it so well.

Whether or not God IS as you want to characterize Him or not cannot be settled on how popular that idea might be. And that's all you appeal to. Then you go pure ad hominem, as if what IC is can have any bearing at all on that question. Neither how much you like the idea, nor how much you like me has anything at all to do with the question in hand. Anybody can see that. It's just basic logic.

Really lame thinking, AJ. You used to be able to do better.

In any case, the truth is that the God of the OT is the God of the NT. And He is utterly intolerant of evil. That's the nature of being the righteous God. But He's also the Saviour of men. That's what "Jesus" means, in fact: "God saves." And "Jesus Christ" means, "God saves through Messiah." So God's primary characteristic is not as Judge -- though He assuredly is that -- but as the One who rescues the lost from judgment.

In fact, if God were not righteous, then salvation would not be a big deal. We could imagine that God would simply look the other way while we carry on...that's what unrighteous judges do. But salvation is a very big deal, precisely because it is necessay that God must vindicate His righteousness, and prove that Harry's accusation is entirely false, by dealing with evil thoroughly and according to the manner that a truly righteous judge would.

And He saves all those who will believe in Him, just as a merciful God would.

That's the message this world hates. It wants, instead, an unrighteous God who indulges the wicked, and an unloving God who perpetuates evil. They don't want to see justice, and they don't want to need mercy. That's what makes the Christian message unpopular.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:36 pm Well if I were pressed to have an attitude about Christianity, I would have to express a preference for whichever variety had the least negative impact on my life, and the C of E falls nicely into that slot.
Is that what one desires of one's "religion"? That it demand nothing? That it challenge nothing? That it be culturally cooperative, undemanding and untroubling? That is ask nothing and give nothing? That it should make no difference whether one believes it or not? And that it should upset no bias of self-willed mankind?

Why bother? Can't one march one's way down to dusty death without the melodious sounds of pipe organs and the whiff of incense?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:59 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 3:10 pm
Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 11:15 am Your variety of Christianity, however, seems very harsh and quite disturbing, not to mention stuffed full of prejudices of its own, and it does suffer the disdain of reasonable people; quite rightly so in my opinion.
Thank you. We were told by Jesus Christ that it would be exactly so. The world would hate us, and call us all kinds of names because we actually stood for His name
Today, Christians have become a majority.
They are not, actually...not in any country in the world. If you believe that, then you are only speaking about nominalism, clearly.
Being disliked is a sign that you're doing it right. :lol:
No, I said the opposite: I said that being liked is a sign you're doing it wrong.

One may be disliked for oneself, or for standing for the truth. Both will do the trick. But if the world loves a person, you can be sure that person knows nothing about God.

As Jesus said:

“If the world hates you,[i.e. His disciples] you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they followed My word, they will follow yours also." (John 15:18-20)
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 7:55 pm
Is that what one desires of one's "religion"? That it demand nothing? That it challenge nothing? That it be culturally cooperative, undemanding and untroubling? That is ask nothing and give nothing? That it should make no difference whether one believes it or not? And that it should upset no bias of self-willed mankind?
The only thing that I desire of religion is that it does not impinge on me. You can have a religion if you must, all I ask is that you keep it away from me.
Post Reply