Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

...let that grape die on the vine

Sounds raisonable.

[henry quirk]

Alex,

There never was a beginning.

As Mannie has pointed out up-thread (in his conversation with Janoah): there's pretty strong evidence there was.

[henry quirk]

...let that grape die on the vine

Sounds raisinable.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, "pessimism" there is a matter of perspective. If you mean that my view dooms efforts to ignore God and produce heaven-on-earth through the intrinsic goodness of mankind's heart, then yes, quite right. But if you mean, instead, is there a hope that we can be delivered from our suicidal self-improvement efforts and learn to value something truly positive and lasting, then my view is far more optimistic than the alternatives.

It seems to me, if I am seeing clearly, that your position leads to an impasse. You propose that the only way that something positive or necessary could take place is if *the people of the given culture* return, sufficiently, to a Christian position, to an applied Christian ethics.

That may be so. And what I am proposing, simply through the recognition of the facts, is that this has not happened (there has never arisen a sufficiently Christian community nor nation, and if there has it has been in very isolated pockets, just as it now, likely in your view, is only attained by some individuals. So it seems to me fair to say that by your own reckoning what is needed (a Christian turning) is not happening and will not happen. And if that is so there really is no hope.

I would say (if I have grasped your position clearly) that it is one of classical pessimism. Because your position "dooms efforts to ignore God and produce heaven-on-earth". I think that your Christian pessimism is a strain that indeed runs through Christianity generally. There is no hope for improvement because, well, the destruction of the world is what is actually predicted -- by Christian prophesy.

Oddly, Christians must go on acting as if it were possible that things could improve, and so they seem to keep making that range of ethical and moral recommendations they always make. Chastening *society* for its sins & omissions.

From my perspective the entire outlook seems a bit strange and *impossible*. But I say this as one who attempts to at least try to orient myself in relation to the God I understand in those ways I believe are *Christian*.

So if what I am saying here is true I believe that your position must necessarily be: there is no hope in changing the course of the world (of the given nations of Europe for example, or any nation that defines itself as Christian or post-Christian or quasi-Christian) and for this reason that larger world is in fact doomed. Your effort therefore can only be that of potentially rescuing individuals who might, if they can undertake the turning you refer to, be able to avoid the catastrophe that awaits those who will not succeed in getting to *the other shore*.

It seems to me that it is not this world that is your focus, and it cannot be your focus.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As Mannie has pointed out up-thread (in his conversation with Janoah): there's pretty strong evidence there was.

I can only repeat what I said, which is actually far more logically consistent: existence is the thing that has to be focused on. That existence exists.

Existence is an absolute.It absolutely exists. It will never not exist. And it has therefore ever-existed.

There might have been some *event* that is seen to be the origin of what I might call *this manifestation* but it could not have been the origin point of Existence, which cannot ever cease to exist.

[Lacewing]

the lesson here, folks, is...

When you disagree with Henry's projections and dumb-ass skewed conclusions, you're WRONG. Only Henry's opinion and archaic beliefs matter. If you think of offering any other perspective... don't. He's too stupid to fathom it, and too egotistical to allow it.

[henry quirk]

As Mannie has pointed out up-thread (in his conversation with Janoah): there's pretty strong evidence there was.

I can only repeat what I said, which is actually far more logically consistent: existence is the thing that has to be focused on. That existence exists.

Existence is an absolute.It absolutely exists. It will never not exist. And it has therefore ever-existed.

There might have been some *event* that is seen to be the origin of what I might call *this manifestation* but it could not have been the origin point of Existence, which cannot ever cease to exist.

So an infinite universe: always was, always will be (either as steady state or oscillating).

And where does God figure in, Alex?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The rest of the Western world was to go on proclaiming itself "Christian" for much of the ensuing century. And real Christians continued to believe as they always had, of course. So we must ask what really "died," beyond Nietzsche's own perspective. And I think he still had a sort of point: it's that under Modernity, too many people were simply becoming merely nominally "Christian," and weren't real Christians at all. Their practices no longer really alligned with what one would expect from somebody who truly believed in the God of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition, to use Nietzsche's expression. The West was becoming hypocritical. And it was only a matter of time, therefore, until all the prophecies of Nietzsche's madman fell upon the West. For nominalism is not enough to sustain society.

I see things differently. I have tried to express the difference as I see it. But I do not think your view concords with mine.

To say 'God has died' is a multi-layered metaphor. I have tried to explain what in that metaphor expresses truth but I do not think that you could accept it. I cannot be certain why this is. It is quite simply that you differ from me in this sense.

It is, or it should be, understood as an impossibility that God could die. Because whatever God is is eternal and always-existing. That is part of the irony of the metaphor of God's death. So if Nietzsche explains that God died I do not think he implies that whatever has produced *all this* died. What died then? The way God is explained perhaps. On old order of metaphysics (?) The world the Scholastics defined definitely died and was superseded.

So it seems to me that what happened is that people could no longer believe in the (former means of explaining) God. And for huge swaths of people, allow me to say, their sense of God is shadowy, perhaps even nostalgic. They refer to 'God' but they refer to something they do not any longer really live in relation to (and not in accord with).

Since there are apparently so few *real Christians* that could be produced to demonstrate the function of their belief we are left (in my view) with christianesque persons.

I do not see Nietzsche's view, necessarily, as an obstacle. Because I think he certainly challenges one to make the effort to define what *God* means for the given individual (who feels a need to work these things out, and I recognize that there are many who do not).

[henry quirk]

the lesson here, folks, is...

When you disagree with Henry's projections and dumb-ass skewed conclusions, you're WRONG. Only Henry's opinion and archaic beliefs matter. If you think of offering any other perspective... don't. He's too stupid to fathom it, and too egotistical to allow it.

safe to say, then, you agree with my good friend, veg, when she describes me as...

...full of shit, and probably the most worthless person on here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So an infinite universe: always was, always will be (either as steady state or oscillating).

And where does God figure in, Alex?

It is a simple statement: when we refer to *existence* we refer, necessarily, to something that could not ever not exist. So, existence must be eternal. If God is understood in this sense, God is then described (necessarily) as existence.

I think that you equate 'the manifest universe' with 'existence'. But God, by your definition, certainly existed before the universe manifested. That is what you are trying to show when you speak of an 'infinite regress'.

What I try to say (it s it only a play of language?) that existence (God) could never not have existed. Therefore, no beginning to what is eternal can ever be defined.

We can I guess speak of beginnings of a sort though. The 'birth of the universe' is one such example.

[henry quirk]

So an infinite universe: always was, always will be (either as steady state or oscillating).

And where does God figure in, Alex?

It is a simple statement: when we refer to *existence* we refer, necessarily, to something that could not ever not exist. So, existence must be eternal. If God is understood in this sense, God is then described (necessarily) as existence.

I think that you equate 'the manifest universe' with 'existence'. But God, by your definition, certainly existed before the universe manifested. That is what you are trying to show when you speak of an infinite regress'.

What I try to say (it s it only a play of language?) that existence (God) could never not have existed. Therefore, no beginning to what is eternal can ever be defined.

We can I guess speak of beginnings of a sort though. The 'birth of the universe' is one such example.

Forgive me, but I'm gonna worry at this bone for a bit.

God is existence: this is a pan-sumthin' or other, yes?

How do you square this with Christianity?

[Alexis Jacobi]

God is existence: this is a pan-sumthin' or other, yes?

When you go back into the infinite regress, you arrive at God, the God that put everything in motion, right?

You go back (if I am not mistaken) to the existent being out of which all contingent existence comes.

Is that Being that you define as eternal God? If yes did that Being have an origin?

No. It is not possible to propose that. In this sense one can describe God as eternally existent and in this sense as *Existence* (or perhaps the possibility of existence).

I do not think that the view I express here, which is logically consistent (undeniable in fact) means that the existent world is God's body. That seems to be how you are taking it. I think people have definitely thought such a thing (the Jains of India did very much think just that).

I think that one would have to explain the manifest universe as some aspect of God, in some sense. How could it be otherwise?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, "pessimism" there is a matter of perspective. If you mean that my view dooms efforts to ignore God and produce heaven-on-earth through the intrinsic goodness of mankind's heart, then yes, quite right. But if you mean, instead, is there a hope that we can be delivered from our suicidal self-improvement efforts and learn to value something truly positive and lasting, then my view is far more optimistic than the alternatives.

It seems to me, if I am seeing clearly, that your position leads to an impasse. You propose that the only way that something positive or necessary could take place is if *the people of the given culture* return, sufficiently, to a Christian position, to an applied Christian ethics.

Not quite.

I propose that if the thing you want to come about is ever to come about it will only come about to the extent that people really become Christians. To the extent that some insist on remaining only "christianesque," to that extent your project will begin to fail. And if all are merely "christianesque," that failure will be total.

...it seems to me fair to say that by your own reckoning what is needed (a Christian turning) is not happening and will not happen.

Well, a major "Chrisitian turning" is certainly happening on a global scale, but not in the West, of course. Still, there's no saying what could happen if people actually listened and changed. But let's operate on that assumption anyway, for the moment: no such turning is in the offing at the moment, let's say.

And if that is so there really is no hope.

For Western civilization? Or for the individual?

None of the former, but plenty of the latter.

There is no hope for improvement because, well, the destruction of the world is what is actually predicted -- by Christian prophesy.

It's actually the salvation of the world that's predicted in prophecy. But such destruction that is likely to happen will be the product of those very forces to which you look for human salvation -- namely, mankind's determination to engineer his own "heaven," without God.

And you can see it already. You can see what happens in any regimes that have proclaimed themselves the vanguard of a new, godless "utopia." They've all ended up being incredibly destructive and homicidal. And that's the way it always will be. The problem is that human power is increasing -- each disastrous attempt at creating heaven-on-earth becomes bigger, more disastrous, more devastating to mankind and the world he lives in...our mistakes are lurching from side to side, increasing in magnitude; inevitably, one more lurch to one side takes mankind and global civilization into the ditch...

You can see it coming. You don't even need prophecy to tell you that's how it's setting up to go. You just need a news service.

Oddly, Christians must go on acting as if it were possible that things could improve, and so they seem to keep making that range of ethical and moral recommendations they always make. Chastening *society* for its sins & omissions.

There's nothing really "odd" about it. Christians don't want to see it happen. Who would want to see so many people get hurt so badly, even if it's the inevitable outcome of their own bad decisions? So you say what you can, slow down the destructive process as much as possible, and reach out to anybody you can reach. It's the right thing to do, of course.

So if what I am saying here is true I believe that your position must necessarily be: there is no hope in changing the course of the world (of the given nations of Europe for example, or any nation that defines itself as Christian or post-Christian or quasi-Christian) and for this reason that larger world is in fact doomed. Your effort therefore can only be that of potentially rescuing individuals who might, if they can undertake the turning you refer to, be able to avoid the catastrophe that awaits those who will not succeed in getting to *the other shore*.

A nice summary. That's essentially correct. I would only add that in the meanwhile, the more people you reach, the more you hold back the effects of what people are so desperately preparing to do to themselves. So you do what you can.

But I don't think any of us can miss the determination of the general public to do what they're going to do. We can see what they're aiming for; all a Christian can do is say to them, "Don't do it." But we know, at the end of the day, they won't listen. And they will eat the fruit of the tree they plant. We just wouldn't wish it on them.

Neither would God, actually. But they have a right to choose their destiny. And one way or another, we all shall.

It seems to me that it is not this world that is your focus, and it cannot be your focus.

Well, that's not quite it.

Let's put it better. The activities of this world are not valueless -- not at all, in fact, since they prepare for eternity. However, they are secondary -- in the sense that they are never ends-in-themselves. Their actual value is relativized to the eternal. And it is this that allows the Christian to escape the desperate need, so evident today among men, to manipulate the world technologically, politically, environmentally and otherwise in a doomed attempt to create a paradise without God. Instead, the Christian can favour the ethical ahead of the strategic. He can favour the spiritual ahead of the physical. He can prioritize the right over the selfishly-advantageous. He can love God and his neighbour rather than himself. He can give up the goods and possessions of this world in exchange for those of the next world. And he can give up the urgencies of the "now" in order to gain the long-term blessing of the "then."

It can really be summed up in this saying of Christ: "What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?"

[Immanuel Can]

...existence is the thing that has to be focused on. That existence exists.

Then focus on it. Really focus.

Something exists. And it cannot have been the result of an infinite chain of material causes. If it were, nothing would exist at all, because there'd be no starting point.

But there was! We know, because we can see that we exist!

So focus: and figure out what that means.

[Immanuel Can]

The rest of the Western world was to go on proclaiming itself "Christian" for much of the ensuing century. And real Christians continued to believe as they always had, of course. So we must ask what really "died," beyond Nietzsche's own perspective. And I think he still had a sort of point: it's that under Modernity, too many people were simply becoming merely nominally "Christian," and weren't real Christians at all. Their practices no longer really alligned with what one would expect from somebody who truly believed in the God of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition, to use Nietzsche's expression. The West was becoming hypocritical. And it was only a matter of time, therefore, until all the prophecies of Nietzsche's madman fell upon the West. For nominalism is not enough to sustain society.

I see things differently. I have tried to express the difference as I see it. But I do not think your view concords with mine.

To say 'God has died' is a multi-layered metaphor. I

I actually agreed with you thus far. Nietzsche's not speaking of any fact there: he's using a metaphor for "Modern people tend not to even have a relevant place for the God concept anymore."

What died then?

As above. People's sense of the relevant place of God. That's all.

They refer to 'God' but they refer to something they do not any longer really live in relation to (and not in accord with).

Yes, that's what I said.

What I don't understand, so far, is where you think we're disagreeing.

Since there are apparently so few *real Christians* that could be produced to demonstrate the function of their belief we are left (in my view) with christianesque persons.

Yes, Nietzsche thought so, too. That's why he has his madman throw his lantern down and exclaim, "I have come too soon!" The townspeople do not yet realize the full impact of their own creeping agnosticism. The madman is ahead of them.

But all of this turns out to be no more than a literary fiction. In point of fact, Western people remained at least nominally "christianesque" for many years after that, and real Christians never went anywhere at all, but remained Christian. And we have many among us today, of which I am one. So Nietzsche was just talking.

What it turns out that Nietzsche can be relevant to is, maybe, modern, Western, "christianesque" men of the late 20th Century. But to the mass of humanity, he has no relevance at all. He was just off base.