Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5361
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:43 pm I am interested in what you would include under the heading of "sexual deviancy", and why you think it matters.
It's a good question -- a fair one I think. So, to start, I know there is a type of person, an outlook today, that places no especial emphasis on sexual expression. 'Sex positive' is the term used often (generally within feminist circles) for women who wish to see sexual expression as no big thing. Do what you want, go to whatever limit you want, it really doesn't matter. You are free and we all are free to carry on as we wish -- no restraints.

But this outlook, this ethics, is exceptionally modern. My supposition is that sexual license at this level is one or another outcome of the French Revolution: to consciously overturn those restraints that were mediated by the Church and social institutions. Though de Sade predated the Revolution I think he can be considered as a precursor:
Sade is best known for his erotic works, which combined philosophical discourse with pornography, depicting sexual fantasies with an emphasis on violence, suffering, anal sex (which he calls sodomy), child rape, crime, and blasphemy against Christianity. Many of the characters in his works are teenagers or adolescents. His work is a depiction of extreme absolute freedom, unrestrained by morality, religion, or law. The words sadism and sadist are derived from his name in reference to the works of fiction he wrote, which portrayed numerous acts of sexual cruelty. While Sade explored a wide range of sexual deviations through his writings, his known behavior includes "only the beating of a housemaid and an orgy with several prostitutes—behavior significantly departing from the clinical definition of sadism". It is known that Sade forcibly held five adolescent girls and a teenage boy hostage in his chateau while forcing them to commit various sexual acts for six weeks in 1774. Sade was a proponent of free public brothels paid for by the state: In order both to prevent crimes in society that are motivated by lust and to reduce the desire to oppress others using one’s own power, Sade recommended public brothels where people can satisfy their wishes to command and be obeyed.
Since my view is that certain trends have developed and strengthened into social currents which are breaking-apart the foundations of our various societies, the problem is to identify what those trends and currents are. But here there is tremendous discord of opinion. No one can agree. So the issue is one that involves different platforms of opinion and these reflect the Culture Wars.

Myself, I have already done my research and arrived at my conclusions. Sexuality is perhaps the most powerful manipulation tool that is exploited both intentionally and also inadvertently.

St Augustine wrote:
The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but- what is worse - the slave of as many masters as he has vices.
I see this not through a Christian lens but as an expression of intelligent Platonism.

If the question then becomes Who takes advantage of the tool of sexuality in larger social-manipulations, the answer becomes complex.

The question you ask is asked by a man for whom NOTHING MATTERS. What I mean -- again -- is that you present yourself as a man who is an outcome of social processes, yet who has no self-awareness of how he has been created.

So even as I try to make definitive statements about sexual deviancy and man's loss of sovereignty over himself (in a Platonic sense), I am called to answer to a man who is the very outcome of that loss of sovereignty.

But this is often the case today and on forums like this: peopled with individuals who have internalized sets of traits that are by definition deviant. But when you bring it to their attention they react against what you are saying, and try to present as "good' and 'normal' and 'necessary' the very ethics you are critiquing.
Belinda
Posts: 8043
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Alexis quoted St Augustine:
The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but- what is worse - the slave of as many masters as he has vices.
Augustine implies that the nearer your intentions are to God (Platonic Good) the more free you are. Therefore freedom and Platonic Good together are a parametric pole that relates to absence of good and absence of freedom which form the opposite pole.

There is no indication in the quote from Augustine that God and Nature are not the same.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9776
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 4:36 pm
Harbal wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:43 pm I am interested in what you would include under the heading of "sexual deviancy", and why you think it matters.
It's a good question --
And I appreciate the effort you have put into not answering it.
So even as I try to make definitive statements about sexual deviancy and man's loss of sovereignty over himself (in a Platonic sense), I am called to answer to a man who is the very outcome of that loss of sovereignty.

But this is often the case today and on forums like this: peopled with individuals who have internalized sets of traits that are by definition deviant. But when you bring it to their attention they react against what you are saying, and try to present as "good' and 'normal' and 'necessary' the very ethics you are critiquing.
You haven't specified exactly what you consider to be sexual deviancy, and exactly why it is detrimental to society. Until you do that, I can't react against what you are saying, because you haven't said anything specific enough.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5361
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:26 pmYou haven't specified exactly what you consider to be sexual deviancy, and exactly why it is detrimental to society. Until you do that, I can't react against what you are saying, because you haven't said anything specific enough.
Better said that what I have said is unintelligible to you — for the reasons I described!

Sexual deviancy must be defined as sexual activity (pleasure, sport, diversion) outside of the male-female procreative relationship. The farther afield from that, the more deviant it becomes.

It is a question of consciousness, awareness and responsibility. It is ur-ethical. And best understood through a Platonic intellectual toolkit.

There you have it.
and exactly why it is detrimental to society
Because it rips apart the core matrix of a healthy society. Vice enslaves man to destructive passions. Those passions drive a man (and his mate) away from the core union, as sex-addicts and porn fiends will attest. It is a fire that burns.

This is such basic stuff Harbal.

The shape-shifting fad (sexual flip-flopping) seems deeply symptomatic of disturbed psychology.

And way too much emphasis on homosexuality as a ‘normal’ mode seems the same also. Homosexuality will always exist but it should be lightly repressed, never normalized.

These deviancies are evidences of decadence and trends that unravel social orders at the fundamental level. If you enjoy the practices you may enjoy less the results.

But a vice-driven people lose the capacity of discrimination. And we have become such a people.

Fact.
Last edited by Alexis Jacobi on Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9776
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:34 pm Sexual deviancy must be defined as sexual activity (pleasure, sport, diversion) outside of the male-female procreative relationship. The farther afield from that, the more deviant it becomes.
Okay, thank you.
It is a question of consciousness, awareness and responsibility. It is ur-ethical. And best understood through a Platonic intellectual toolkit.

There you have it.
Well, my attitude towards your opinion is pretty much what I imagine you expect it to be.
Skepdick
Posts: 14448
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Skepdick »

tillingborn wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:13 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:04 am...I am not a halfwit.
If you don't appreciate that each OR you mention is an appeal to authority or revelation, yes you are.
Only a halfwit would try to explain my own position to me.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5361
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:42 pm Well, my attitude towards your opinion is pretty much what I imagine you expect it to be.
Dully drooling with an uncomprehending, blank look?
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by tillingborn »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:43 pmOnly a halfwit would try to explain my own position to me.
Then we agree:
tillingborn wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 8:55 amI have no interest in a dialogue with another halfwit who presumes to tell me what I think.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9776
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Can I get a volunteer to participate in casual, deviant, decadent, postmodern :? , none procreative sex with me?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5361
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:02 pm Can I get a volunteer to participate in casual, deviant, decadent, postmodern :? , none procreative sex with me?
Far more likely and more easily attainable and maintainable than its opposite.

So again: when you propose or demonstrate sane normality to deviants it drives them even further into defense of it.

Vice is similar to a child’s rebellion.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9776
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:07 pm So again: when you propose or demonstrate sane normality to deviants it drives them even further into defense of it.
Yes, you're right. You've put me in the mood for some excessive debauchery. 8)
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:02 pm Can I get a volunteer to participate in casual, deviant, decadent, postmodern :? , none procreative sex with me?
Yes, I'm up for it Harby :shock:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7397
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:56 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:08 pmDo you not find the fact that it was possible for a narcissistic moron like Donald Trump to become president of the USA alarming?
Given that my position and objective is one of observation and understanding about the present, though I do admit to being ideologically opposed to (what I understand to be) the transformation of America (technically my country) into a nation-state of a very different sort than the original version, I take a somewhat different tack when examining the phenomenon of Donald Trump.

Years back now, as DT was running but not yet elected, I followed a blog by an interesting man with legal and political background in Washington and whose area of interest at Harvard had been the American Presidency. He was adamantly opposed to Donald Trump for a group of reasons given that he is brusque, loud-mouthed, uncouth, vulgar, hot-headed and in a certain ethical and moral sense degenerate. But he saw DT in the context of a general decline in American culture which, I think, anyone observing should clearly see and take note of.

I think it true that when contemplating a man like DT that, as with some many things in our present, one assembles interpretive tools to make sense of him. Some are merely handed to one -- i.e. all the sort of noisy opinions that one receives through media-systems -- and which one adopts rather stupidly.

For example your term 'narcissist' is one such term because it really doesn't provide any interpretative help. I followed closely over the years the NYTs interpretive dirty-work on DT and it may interest you to know that at one point a prominent journalist declared that given the danger presented by DT it had become necessary for him as a journalist to stop engaging journalistically and to take a directly opposing angle in his reporting. That is not to report 'the truth' but to present doctored negative outlooks that would act to inhibit DT's election and his success as an American President. He stated this in an editorial that appeared on the front page and I thought this extraordinary. And, rather quickly, the NYTs morphed from being 'the periodical of record' to being a Maoist-like 'struggle-session' indoctrination-vehicle for a class of person inclined in Progressive-Egalitarian and also sexual-deviancy directions.

You will notice of course that I am making harsh judgments with these statements and revealing a 'conservative' stance. One of the key 'tells' about a civilizational decline (according to some serious historians) is how sexual mores show up at key points as part of a general decline in ethics and moral standards. In my view sexual deviancy is like a mental and psychological disease. And also in my view this 'disease' is spreading like wildfire. And it is my position that that, what I am describing, needs to be seen in a far larger context of social breakdown and certainly also in the economic sphere.

So, doubling back to what I said about the emergence of a New Version of America and one very different from the Original Version, I see this as an economic model which people tend to describe as 'globalist' without really defining what that means. And I have also said that this globalism must be seen as largely an American creation, a construction, an imposed economic and cultural model built after America's victory after WW2. It was then that American planners divided the world into 'regions' to be administered through a cultural and economic model uniquely American.

And there is where Homo americanus is to be seen. This is really an anthropological type. It involves a new, universalist definition of Man as a world-being, and it defines the Earth as a place where this universalist economic and social model is to be imposed. And this imposition is presented through a type of psychology in which American manifest destiny is presented, which is to say imposed, on the world and presented as inherently 'moral' and 'good' but also inevitable and necessary. It is presented as an evolutionary model for humanity. Humankind's next step. The right way to see, think and live.

In my view the behind-the-scenes power-struggles that are referred to as obscure machinations of the (American) Deep State need to be seen through this lens. Or, it is helpful to see these deep systemic struggles in this way. I wish I understood it all better but I cannot say that I do. But from what I can piece together we are actually in a time of war, a war has begun, and it is geo-political, it is ideological, but moreover it is economic. The question seems to be: whose model will dominate 'the world market'? And what will be it civil terms? Will it be a model like China's? Or will it be one like America's?

And yet it is important to state (or I think so anyway) that both models show similar patterns. Or ideological connections. The model that is being imposed right now by the regime we refer to as run by 'Democrats' (a catch-word for a collusion between the private sector and the public-governmental machinery) is necessarily authoritarian in the sense that no opposition to it will be or can be allowed. Anyone opposing it, or opposing those elements of its anthropology, must be weakened and destroyed. It is fair to say that behind this *imposition* are extremely consequential and powerful forces that must have their way with the American mind. It is an extension propaganda-model of 'winning hearts & minds'.

So with a bit of background -- and no one on this entire forum seems to have much background at all nor to be much interested to have such -- it is now possible to examine the phenomenon of Donald Trump. What other lens might we use to understand his appearance and rise? Certainly that of the Demagogue but also I think CG Jung's view that the manifestation of huge cultural figures can be examined through a psychological lens. Jung did write interesting essays about Hitler in the aftermath of his rise and fall. I have even provided links to those essays months back. I am not saying that Trump is a Hitlerian figure, I certainly do not think he is. But I think it wise to examine him as a 'social phenomenon' -- a man who 'arose' within a social context of the beginning of breakdown in social cohesion -- and a man who seems to represent a significant portion of a cultural demographic of the 'former America' I spoke of. You could say the 'white demographic' of an America in a process of being reengineered into a sort of cog within a larger global machine. This is one reason why I bring up the concern of 'race' and 'ethnicity' in the context of America and Europe.

I recognize that you-plural have integrated into your very selves that it is *immoral* to see race and ethnicity and if ever you did see things in such a way there is an Editor who quickly suppresses the thought itself. This, to me, shows how extraordinarily powerful are those public relations and propaganda techniques alluded to. You have been 'engineered' to be that 'global man' and that 'global citizen' in a huge construct. You will turn against yourselves at the most fundamental level so to be able to see yourselves as 'good'.

(I know that all of this goes completely over your head Harbal but you know that I am not really writing this to you but rather using you as a springboard.)

This reengineering process has about 100 year history, even a bit more now, and some part of its origin can be traced back to the First World War and the emergence of extremely powerful public relations and propaganda science of social manipulation. I would draw to your attention that consequential ideological battles went on at that time (in the Teens) in which a national establishment determined it necessary to create a 'machinery' to get people on-board with America's entry to the European War. That 'machinery' needs to be seen and better understood if one actually wishes to come up with coherent interpretations of what is going on now in the present.

All of this preamble (I know, it is all useless given the low-level of interest and capability often shown here) is to present a situation over which, at least I do not think so, any one of us has much power at all. We are simply *along for the ride* and are carried in a current of powerful events which we have limited influence over.

Finally, it occurs to me that we must now begin to recapitulate and review what this entire thread has been about. The loss of a national religious identity -- here I speak sociologically and not as a Christian partisan -- is the beginning of the suicide some theorists like Pat Buchanan and Douglas Murray have written about.

Murray's book:
The Strange Death of Europe is a highly personal account of a continent and culture caught in the act of suicide. Declining birth rates, mass immigration, and cultivated self-distrust and self-hatred have come together to make Europeans unable to argue for themselves and incapable of resisting their own comprehensive alteration as a society and an eventual end.

This is not just an analysis of demographic and political realities; it is also an eyewitness account of a continent in self-destruct mode. It includes accounts based on travels across the entire continent, from the places where migrants land to the places they end up, from the people who pretend they want them to the places which cannot accept them.

Murray takes a step back at each stage and looks at the bigger and deeper issues which lie behind a continent's possible demise, from an atmosphere of mass terror attacks to the steady erosion of our freedoms. The audiobook addresses the disappointing failure of multiculturalism, Angela Merkel's U-turn on migration, the lack of repatriation, and the Western fixation on guilt. Murray travels to Berlin, Paris, Scandinavia, Lampedusa, and Greece to uncover the malaise at the very heart of the European culture and to hear the stories of those who have arrived in Europe from far away.

This sharp and incisive audiobook ends up with two visions for a new Europe - one hopeful, one pessimistic - which paint a picture of Europe in crisis and offer a choice as to what, if anything, we can do next. But perhaps Spengler was right: 'civilizations, like humans, are born, briefly flourish, decay, and die'.
Buchanan's:
America is disintegrating. The "one Nation under God, indivisible" of the Pledge of Allegiance is passing away. In a few decades, that America will be gone forever. In its place will arise a country unrecognizable to our parents. This is the thrust of Pat Buchanan's Suicide of a Superpower, his most controversial and thought-provoking book to date.

Buchanan traces the disintegration to three historic changes: America's loss of her cradle faith, Christianity; the moral, social, and cultural collapse that have followed from that loss; and the slow death of the people who created and ruled the nation. And as our nation disintegrates, our government is failing in its fundamental duties, unable to defend our borders, balance our budgets, or win our wars.

How Americans are killing the country they profess to love, and the fate that awaits us if we do not turn around, is what Suicide of a Superpower is all about.
And remember Bowden's prescient declarations. What has interested me is to observe the reactions that Bowden gets from people, as on this forum, who evince fundamental indoctrination. I am amazed how the 'internal editor' rises up to nip in the bud any self-affirming thought.

Think of me, Alexis Jacobi, as a sort of psychopomp on a very very difficult ideological journey!
Psychopomps (from the Greek word ψυχοπομπός, psychopompós, literally meaning the 'guide of souls') are supernatural creatures, spirits, entities, angels, demons or deities in many religions whose responsibility is to escort newly deceased souls from Earth to the afterlife. Their role is not to judge the deceased, but simply to guide them. Appearing frequently on funerary art, psychopomps have been depicted at different times and in different cultures as anthropomorphic entities, horses, deer, dogs, whip-poor-wills, ravens, crows, vultures, owls, sparrows, and cuckoos. In the case of birds, these are often seen in huge masses, waiting outside the home of the dying.
:wink:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7397
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.
VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.
Right. And therefore the very possibility that it is your God that exists and not one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...implies that your God exists. Or, for them, their God.
In order to understand this argument, you need to understand what philosophers mean by ‘possible worlds’. A possible world is just a way the world might have been. It is a description of a possible reality. So a possible world is not a planet or a universe or any kind of concrete object, it is a world-description. The actual world is the description that is true.
No, it is a word description of a world that you either thought up yourself or, as a youth, others thought up for you.
Other possible worlds are descriptions that are not in fact true but which might have been true. To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some consistent description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world means that no matter which description is true, that entity will be included in the description. For example, unicorns do not in fact exist, but there are some possible worlds in which unicorns exist. On the other hand, many mathematicians think that numbers exist in every possible world.
Really, how preposterous is this given the gap between what one does believe "in their head" about God and what one is able to actually demonstrate is in fact true about the world that we live in?

Sure, given that some argue there may well be millions and millions of planets where biological life took root in the astounding vastness of the universe, it's possible that what we "think up" in our heads as unicorns may in fact actually have evolved on some planet in the universe. So, is that enough to say that unicorns must exist? And that they must exist exactly as you imagine them to be?
Now with that in mind, consider the ontological argument, which was discovered in the year 1011 by the monk Anselm of Canterbury. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable.
That, from my perspective, is another "sleight of mind" employed by the religionists: define God into existence. God encompassed in a world of words.
If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being – a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and He would exist in every logically possible world. A being which lacked any of those properties would not be maximally great: we could conceive of something greater – a being which did have all these properties.
What do you conceive God to be? What do you conceive God to be?

Logically, for example?

But then for millions of mere mortals that's the beauty of the human condition. We are able to believe in a God simply by convincing ourselves that He can "logically" be defined into existence "in our head". And since there are millions of others who believe the same thing that settles it: He must exist.

Ontologically no less!

Ontically, however?

Ontically: "from the point of view of real existence"

You tell me.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9776
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:16 pm
Harbal wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:02 pm Can I get a volunteer to participate in casual, deviant, decadent, postmodern :? , none procreative sex with me?
Yes, I'm up for it Harby :shock:
Okay, but you do realise the exercise would be solely about the persuit of pleasure, don't you? Do you have any moral or ethical objections to engaging in pleasant activities that are no one's business but your own?

I should warn you, though, it would involve hurting absolutely no one; would that be a problem for you?
Post Reply