Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:09 pmIf God is not synonymous with the Creation, if God and Creation (or existence) are two, not one, then I'm missin' sumthin' in your posts (cuz it seems to me you're sayin' the two are synonymous).
If you are missing something, and I am not saying you are, what you might be missing is the fullest explanation of what you yourself seem to be supporting with your own reference to an infinite regress -- if that infinite regress proposes that when one has completed it one is (to put it colorfully) *in the presence of God*.

One would then have to answer: If God created the universe of expanding matter, and indeed if he created all that is (whatever it all really is, which may not be anything at all except power or force (or thought?) -- after all what is matter? I thought that the physicists said that matter is just an appearance and behind mater is just energy? But I also think that no one has any explanation of what 'force' or 'energy' is and what it is is a complete mystery);
'Energy' is just the result from matter reacting with itself. And,

'Force' is just what 'energy' does to drive or move 'matter'.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm If God created the universe and everything in it, how will you explain God's relationship to it?
What does the word 'it' refer to here, EXACTLY?

And, what do you mean by "If"?

God, Itself, IS creating the Universe, Itself, ALWAYS, right HERE and NOW.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm As a completely exteriorized energy? As something part-and-parcel of God? To what degree does God inhabit or infuse the *world* that God created ex nihilo? Is some part of God in the creation? If so, in what way?
'God', Itself, IS thee Creation, Itself.

There is absolutely NOTHING created from NOTHING. And, there is absolutely NO way God could be outside or beyond thee Creation, Itself. ALL-OF-THIS is ALL VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to UNDERSTAND, ACTUALLY.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm [The Vaishnavas have an interesting and intuitively plausible way of defining the 'material world' that we live in. They defeine it as "God's external energy', to be distinguished from 'God's internal energy'. The object for them is to move, or be moved, from the external energy to the internal energy -- and that is the object of spiritual life and indeed of existence. Hell (the hell-worlds) is defined by them as being on a farther point of God's external energy. And samsara is a form of hell-existence. And one is in samsara (voyaging without a guide) because one is under the spell of nescience. That is, one does not have the proper (interiorly revealed) knowledge. Knowledge has to dawn in one, in any one of us, before we can *see* what really is, and what really is true about our life here. Many can't or don't. They exist then in 'darkness' which means lack of knowledge and awareness.]
And, just like EVERY other human-made 'religion' what IS ACTUALLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect can be CLEARLY SEEN here, as well as what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct can ALSO be CLEARLY SEEN here.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm The intelligent design people go so far as to say that *the idea of all things* had to preexist the creation of all things, and in this sense God must be the architect of all that is possible and all that is real and takes shape, right? This will sound like trivialization but we will be forced to agree that a ham & cheese sandwich had to exist within the Mind of God, would we not? So too the milkshake.
NOT AT ALL. This is because there is NO "Mind of God", just like there is NO "human mind", and just like Creation, Itself, IS God, Itself, so to is thee Mind, Itself, God, Itself. But FURTHER EXPLANATION is needed before 'you', human beings, are yet ready to UNDERSTAND and SEE this Fact.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm Just as the supernova and those far-off clouds that contain a billion galaxies . . .

Still, I am pretty sure that you are not capturing (because it is hard to express) what I mean when I say that God is Existence.
But when ALL-OF-THIS is FULLY UNDERSTOOD what ALL-OF-THIS essentially and VERY SIMPLE comes down to are IRREFUTABLE conclusions like the one you just expressed here, that is; God is Existence, Itself.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm You take it to mean what has been created. And you are right that some part of that idea is expressed in pantheism (that we live in God's body). Quite literally this is what the Jains conceived: that we live, literally, within the body of God. And in the course of (I think 86,000 incarnations, they even world out a number) we move through soul-evolution from the lower parts of God's body to the higher part, eventually residing in the 'mind' or the 'intelligence' of God. And that is where Eternity is.
And, it is this 'rising up', through thee continual evolutionary process, to and towards thee (Truly OPEN) Mind, WHY words like 'up-lifting', 'en-light-ening', and 'spirit/s' are used.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm So it seems to me that everyone works with (what I call) an imagined picture.
EXCEPT, that there is REALLY just One BIG, and True, Picture. Which, when one learns and understands HOW to RECOGNIZE and SEE properly, correctly, and FULLY, then that one KNOWS when "others" are SEEING and SPEAKING this SAME One True VIEW and STORY.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm The idea of the *world* (and all successive worlds) is only and always an IDEA held in the mind, in the imagination, of man.
The Truths and the Falsehoods can be CLEARLY SEEN and EXPLAINED, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm But the picture is not the reality. The picture is just a picture.
But when the Picture MATCHES Reality, then the Picture is MORE than just a picture.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm I would say that there is, and I mean this truthfully, no way to provide a *real picture* because no picture is ever real.
You can say and mean 'things', truthfully, but this does NOT mean that 'thing' IS ACTUALLY Truthful.

HOW to OBTAIN and PROVIDE thee One and ONLY REAL Picture is a very SIMPLE and EASY process. One just needs to learn HOW to do and achieve this first. And, 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, were just another step UP along the evolutionary path of coming to KNOW thy Self. But, 'you' are SO CLOSE and are on the verge of stepping off the eighth and second last step and stepping up to the ninth and last step, TO HEAVEN.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm A picture is a reference, an allusion, or a metaphor.
And just like words can paint a picture, your words here a painting a picture of just what you ASSUME is real and true, and NOT necessarily ACTUALLY REAL nor True, AT ALL.

SEE, when one SEES the REAL and True Big of FULL Picture, then what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT here will make far more and even PERFECT sense.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 2:36 pm This is why, of course, I make an effort to explain to Immanuel Can that the Christian Story requires an exegesis, and this exegesis can only take shape through a gnostic analysis. I do not mean a Gnostic analysis as in the Gnostics. But an application of a unique capability of analysis -- a way of seeing through symbols and pictures to a Reality that cannot ever be pictured. Only (I guess) intuited.
WHY do you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that Reality, Itself, can NEVER be 'pictured' by 'you'?

Is this because you can NOT YET picture Reality, EXACTLY, "yourself"?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Belinda wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 11:50 am Mainly I want to discuss Alexis Jacobi's gnostic stance, as I was troubled by the split between the God of Nature and the God of goodness, beauty, and truth.

The latter emerges from the former, and is mainly a matter of stories and codified morality. Stories and codified morality pertain to man's facility with language. There is no division of kind, but only one of degrees, between men and other animals. Indeed in many respects the other animals are more good, more true, and more beautiful than man.
I will just try to state some facts as I understand them.

One is that there is in my view clearly a difference between how the natural world operates, or the laws and rules that operate in it, and the *notion of God* which is held uniquely by human beings. I cannot see any way around this and if anyone writing here can please describe how.

But since I am a theist, and my theistic position has been, let's say, verified by personal experiences, I have to attempt an explanation of what then is God? When I refer to God what am I referring to?

So what I have done is to perform what I call a manoeuvre. And what this means is pretty much what I have been saying: the God that we recognize and acknowledge is revealed uniquely through our own selves. I guess I would say that we are the metaphysical instrument, and we have a relationship with God (if we have one) through the instrument of our psyche.

So I guess I would say that a) I recognize that God operates in nature as the designer and creator (because I do not see an alternative to the logic of the infinite regress and when one follows back causation there seems no alternative but to that of a conscious, intelligent creator). Yet though this is true it certainly seems that 'the world of nature' is left, completely, to itself. It can almost be defined as 'another world'. Yet it is that world that is probed and explored by the material sciences.

And that world is *our world*. Distinct from that world is our inner world(s). This places the emphasis back onto man.

And when that world is brought out into view it is a world non-dependent on the sort of metaphysical considerations that are relevant and indispensable to man (to people).

Yet b) man is a unique instrument and the only creature of which I am aware that can have consciousness and awareness of God. All people in all cultures have such a conception, but each culture and people seems to work out its definitions differently. So I propose that each person's view depends, if you will, on their 'lens'. The lens is the perceptual structure -- the structure of perception that *sees* the world. And by *see* I do mean *interpret*.

I propose that this way of understanding is gnostic but I only mean that to indicate 'special knowledge' or a form of knowledge that delves under the surface. (I do believe that I have been influenced by Heidegger's essay on Plato's Cave.)

But now let me say something about the sort of division I am referring to. That is, the division between the natural world and the world of man's (or my own) psyche. In my view *spirituality* occurs within a given individual. They themselves are the instrument and the mechanism of this spirituality, and thus if there is a relationship with God or 'higher being' (or beings), the essential truth is that it occurs within that person. So special emphasis is placed on that individual. I really don't know how else to put it except to say exactly what I am saying.

Religion and spirituality do not exist outside of man. But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being, the nature of which I really can have no idea. When I say this I do not mean that I could not say something or other, or refer to some inner experience, or refer to other people's experience, or refer to some written text -- all this I can do! But in order to say anything at all about such transcendental matters I can only do so through allusion. An 'allusion' is not a fact. An allusion is an intimation. Facts operate in the tangible world. But in the intangible world the stuff that one deals with is non-definite and, as I try to say, is filtered through and expressed through the instrument that is man (the person, persons).

How has this view come about? So many different influences. Not the least (rather obviously) I would refer to CG Jung. If only because of the reference to *the psyche*. I guess I concluded that Jung is restating, in modern terms, some far older concepts about 'the nature of man'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:29 am
Janoah wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:46 am

To experiment, you would have to live forever. I don’t advise you, you will die of boredom.
Correct. That experiment would last forever, because the infinite regress would never start.

QED
And, just like thee Universe, Itself, It NEVER did start.
If the chain of cause-and-effect never started, you would not be here. Neither would the universe.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:07 pmBut now let me say something about the sort of division I am referring to. That is, the division between the natural world and the world of man's (or my own) psyche. In my view *spirituality* occurs within a given individual. They themselves are the instrument and the mechanism of this spirituality, and thus if there is a relationship with God or 'higher being' (or beings), the essential truth is that it occurs within that person. So special emphasis is placed on that individual. I really don't know how else to put it except to say exactly what I am saying.

Religion and spirituality do not exist outside of man. But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being, the nature of which I really can have no idea. When I say this I do not mean that I could not say something or other, or refer to some inner experience, or refer to other people's experience, or refer to some written text -- all this I can do! But in order to say anything at all about such transcendental matters I can only do so through allusion. An 'allusion' is not a fact. An allusion is an intimation. Facts operate in the tangible world. But in the intangible world the stuff that one deals with is non-definite and, as I try to say, is filtered through and expressed through the instrument that is man (the person, persons).
Some further musings.

What is Christianity then? And who or what is the Figure of Christ?

It seems to me that the Incarnation of Christ has to be *interpreted* as a sort of 'intervention' into the world, but in the largest sense an intervention into the psychic, internal world of man. Is Christ of 'the Christian spirit' commensurate with 'the world' and with 'life'. I would have to say No. And the reason I say No is because the way of the world, the way of the natural world, is in no sense the way of that God who will, according to IC and Christian mythology, eventually bring to an end the world that we know it and create, or install, or magically transform, the world we know into something totally different (where 'the lion shall sleep with the lamb' and if I understand what this means that life and life's predation will be transformed. How the heck else could this strange assertion be interpreted? I am at a loss.)

But I do not think that such a thing will actually happen. The world will go on for millions and billions of years. With or without man.

The other thing I *struggle* with is that each people, because each people is composed of persons who are, in my view, 'lenses' (and all lenses or distinct and different) will see and understand God in unique ways. Now the difficult thing here is to attempt to square the idea of one sole and solitary Jesus Christ with the fact that in actuality different peoples have a specific and unique Christ for themselves.

There was an effort, as you may know, to define a European Christ. There has even been an effort to detach the figure of Jesus Christ from the Judaic matrix. Each people defines a different Jesus Christ. I think this is how it should be. For example I have some old religious Catholic saint representations from Japan that show *Our Lady* dressed in fine Japanese apparel of former times looking Japanese not European or Middle Eastern. I assume there are likely representations of Jesus in similar form. The meaning? People inevitably see and interpret through their own lenses.

And what it means, or has come to mean, to be a Christian/Catholic in Japan is different from what the same means in Europe, or Nigeria, or Bolivia. Each is a very different matrix. (But I do not deny that they refer to the core texts of the religion of course).

So as IC acknowledges, and months and months back this was brought out here, Christianity has moved out of the context of Europe. Many Europeans do not know this but it is a huge phenomenon in all the rest of the (developing) world. Pentecostalism has brought Christianity to the farthest reaches of the planet. And I will say that *Christianities* are developing.

When we conceive of God as a person it reduces (in a way of speaking) God to a limited form. There could only be one Jesus Christ who responds to the prayers of world-wide followers. As if God is a supercomputer, an enormous transcendental server! responding to each *request* coming in through the far-flung network.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:38 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:07 pmBut now let me say something about the sort of division I am referring to. That is, the division between the natural world and the world of man's (or my own) psyche. In my view *spirituality* occurs within a given individual. They themselves are the instrument and the mechanism of this spirituality, and thus if there is a relationship with God or 'higher being' (or beings), the essential truth is that it occurs within that person. So special emphasis is placed on that individual. I really don't know how else to put it except to say exactly what I am saying.

Religion and spirituality do not exist outside of man. But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being, the nature of which I really can have no idea. When I say this I do not mean that I could not say something or other, or refer to some inner experience, or refer to other people's experience, or refer to some written text -- all this I can do! But in order to say anything at all about such transcendental matters I can only do so through allusion. An 'allusion' is not a fact. An allusion is an intimation. Facts operate in the tangible world. But in the intangible world the stuff that one deals with is non-definite and, as I try to say, is filtered through and expressed through the instrument that is man (the person, persons).
Some further musings.

What is Christianity then? And who or what is the Figure of Christ?

It seems to me that the Incarnation of Christ has to be *interpreted* as a sort of 'intervention' into the world, but in the largest sense an intervention into the psychic, internal world of man.
No, this is too vague and uncommitted a position. And I have to say that I don't merely mean "uncommitted personally to Christ," but rather "uncommitted to basic common sense."

Either Christ was a historical figure, or He was a figment of a man's imagination. Either He is who He said He is, or He's an error or fraud of some kind. That's basic common sense. But this nonsense about Him being some sort of metaphor, some sort of vague, universal aspiration rattling around in the collective unconscious is not rationally tenable. That merely classifies Him as delusion, as soon as we apply common sense.
...the way of the world, the way of the natural world, is in no sense the way of that God who will, according to IC and Christian mythology, eventually bring to an end the world that we know it and create, or install, or magically transform, the world we know into something totally different (where 'the lion shall sleep with the lamb' and if I understand what this means that life and life's predation will be transformed. How the heck else could this strange assertion be interpreted? I am at a loss.)
No other way. It is exactly what He will do.

You're concerned about the world being a cruel place. It is now. It doesn't have to be. It will not always be. There's absolutely no reason to feel confident it will.
But I do not think that such a thing will actually happen. The world will go on for millions and billions of years. With or without man.
Peter wrote about this. He prophesied that in the Last Days there would be people who would speak as follows: “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4) And yet, the time will still come...
The other thing I *struggle* with is that each people...see and understand God in unique ways.
Some ways are right, and some are wrong.

You don't need me to tell you that. You know it, from basic logic. As Aristotle pointed out, when two such "understandings" contradict directly, they can both be wrong, or one can be wrong and one can be right; but the one thing that is never true is that two genuinely contradictory propositions (meaning, those that actually say the direct opposite to each other) cannot be simultaneously true. It's just not possible.
...in actuality different peoples have a specific and unique Christ for themselves.

Again, not at all a difficult observation. All it means is that some know Him, and some don't. If Jesus Christ is a real historical person, then those who know Him know him as He is. And those who don't, dont...and it really doesn't matter after that point what they want to make up, anymore than it would matter if I made up "my own specific and unique" Alexis Jacobi.
There was an effort, as you may know, to define a European Christ.
Yes. It was very, very silly.
There has even been an effort to detach the figure of Jesus Christ from the Judaic matrix.
That's a doomed project, I would say.
And what it means, or has come to mean, to be a Christian/Catholic in Japan is different from what the same means in Europe, or Nigeria, or Bolivia. Each is a very different matrix. (But I do not deny that they refer to the core texts of the religion of course).
You're far too impressed with the mere FACT of difference. And you make the mistake of suggesting that a belief deserves respect merely because a person has it.

But that prejudgment is erroneous. "People" have lots of bad ideas, wrong ideas, and even silly ideas. An idea does not become dignified merely because it passes through the head of an individual. Ideas must be evaluated for their integrity and truth-value.
So as IC acknowledges, and months and months back this was brought out here, Christianity has moved out of the context of Europe.
Funny...I don't remember saying this at all. :wink:

In fact, what I would say is that Christianity hasn't "moved out" of anything. It is where it's always been...larger than in previous history, perhaps, but still very much there. What's different is the departure of the pseudo-Christian or nominal nonsense, the stuff that was used to fuel various political projects in Europe. That's pretty much gone. And as a consequence, the influence of the remaining Christians on the poltical landscape is minimized by the lack of connection that remains between any kind of Christianity, even mere ethical precepts, and the decision makers. They're now a bunch of raw secularists. So Christianity goes on about its business quietly, and the political apparatus goes off down the broad road that leads where all politics eventually end up.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi to Belinda wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:07 pm In my view *spirituality* occurs within a given individual. They themselves are the instrument and the mechanism of this spirituality, and thus if there is a relationship with God or 'higher being' (or beings), the essential truth is that it occurs within that person.
Agreed... and I would add that a person's 'spirituality' may not even follow that model, as well. Similar to what you've said... what we perceive or experience may be a manifestation/appearance of that which uniquely suits ourselves, for whatever reasons. Some people may model it in a certain way, while others may not attempt to model it very distinctly at all. Therefore, I suggest, the modeling isn't an essential part or act, as the spirituality is an innate element to work with, existing throughout all of life. Humans turn it into what they will.
Alexis Jacobi to Belinda wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:07 pmBut the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being
Why would we think there's 'a being'? And why would we think that there's 'intelligence' that is anything at all like our concept of intelligence?

It appears to me that we model the idea of a god based on ourselves: WE are 'beings'. And then (at least in Christianity) we claim that WE are modeled after the god (the self-serving/glorifying/reassuring reasons for that, being rather obvious). Why would a 'god' that created everything we see (and more) be anything at all like US? It makes no sense. At the very least, why wouldn't we consider that such an immense creative energy would be reflected by ALL of creation (even beyond our perception of it)? And in considering that, we might also consider the true limits of our perception and our language/thinking, as there is so much about the natural world's perception and communication and interaction and vastness that we do not understand.

If we accept/allow all to be more full of potential/capability than we can imagine, might we be able to notice/experience more than our own ideas?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Alexis: But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being

Lace: Why would we think there's 'a being'?

Why would we think there's not?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:57 pm And in considering that, we might also consider the true limits of our perception and our language/thinking, as there is so much about the natural world's perception and communication and interaction and vastness that we do not understand.
How can you possibly know there is some, "vastness that we do not understand?" If there are limits to what we know, one of those limits is on how much is not known. This emphasis on, "what is not known," is as mystical as any religion.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:25 pm Lace: Why would we think there's 'a being'?

Why would we think there's not?
To think there is something there must be some evidence of it--something that can be seen or heard or perceived in some other way that raises the question, "what is that?"

Everything that is perceived is evidence of itself. What is the evidence for, "a being?"
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

IC wrote
You don't need me to tell you that. You know it, from basic logic. As Aristotle pointed out, when two such "understandings" contradict directly, they can both be wrong, or one can be wrong and one can be right; but the one thing that is never true is that two genuinely contradictory propositions (meaning, those that actually say the direct opposite to each other) cannot be simultaneously true. It's just not possible.
The contradiction; the most hated but necessary tool for understanding Christianity.

Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
The contradictions offered by the conflict between my higher and lower natures can only be reconciled from the higher perspective of the Holy Spirit brought by the Christ in which the duality of the higher and lower become "one."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:04 pm The contradictions offered by the conflict between my higher and lower natures
Sorry to contradict, Nick: you're misusing the word "contradiction."

Aristotle doesn't mean "conflict." He doesn't mean "disagreement." He certainly doesn't mean "paradox." He means when two sentences or ideas actually (not merely apparently) contradict one another, as in:

Nick exists.

Nick does not exist.

If "exist" is understood to mean "to be real," and "Nick" is the same person in both sentences, and the time is the same, then it is utterly impossible for both to be true -- even if somebody believes each.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:29 pmFunny...I don't remember saying this at all. :wink:
It was when we once discussed a book, I forgot the title, that spoke of the next millennia as being, despite what those in Europe and America think, a very Christian millennia. My paraphrase is to say "Christianity moved out of Europe", but I do not mean relocated, I mean that the Pentecostal religious movement has swept the world, specifically the 'global south' and the underdeveloped regions. See Peter Berger.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:23 pm Aristotle doesn't mean "conflict." He doesn't mean "disagreement." He certainly doesn't mean "paradox." He means when two sentences or ideas actually (not merely apparently) contradict one another, as in:
And this is another thing we once discussed: the law of contradiction. I pointed out that the Jains of India and Jaina seven-valued logic.

I have noticed that you deal in black/white yes/no predicates, and you explain why this is so.

You propose (you predicate) for example "Either Christ was a historical figure, or He was a figment of a man's imagination" and this is an example of your predilection for strict binaries. Either Jesus Christ existed (and what follows from this is the further statements, implied or stated: "And no I will now tell you what he was, what he wasn't, what his existence meant, and a whole list of very strict and definite things that are presented as absolutes") or Jesus Christ did not exist (and thus you cannot be a Christian, obviously, because you do not *believe in* the standard story.

This is why I would say -- and I say this just for general interest -- that you are a representative of a Belief System. To enter the System one must believe certain specific things. And there is 'someone' (those who manage the System) who prowls the perimeters of belief to make sure that the *right thing* is believed. And when something wrong or heretical is discerned it must be combatted aggressively.

I am not necessarily saying that I think this is a 'bad thing' -- we are surrounded by Systems and we have to agree, at least generally, with the tenets of that the systems insist on. But for some, and here I refer to gnosis (knowledge, depth, depth-understanding) which I distinguish from 'standard belief'. There has to be a standard of belief within human systems. But what does *God* ask for?

That question (*What does God desire*) moves the issue onto another plane altogether. Why? Because a given person, who has a spiritual relationship, lives out of that relationship and in relation to ... whatever it is that we define as God. These categories of relationship are far more fluid than orthodoxy generally allows and often Orthodoxy punishes and excludes heretics. But does Orthodoxy also operate as an agent of God? as God's policeman? as God's thought-police?

I am only presenting or perhaps *exclaiming* something about the nature of the problem of belief and about having a religious, spiritual life. I myself choose rather orthodox categories, at least generally speaking. But others do not.

It is inconceivable, to me, that God if I could ever define God or *encapsulate* God would not see with far more penetrating depth into the real heart of any given human -- even a heresiarch, even a deviant.

So in relation to "Either Christ was a historical figure, or He was a figment of a man's imagination" there is obviously, to me anyway, another predicate-position that is not only probable but likely.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:29 pm No, this is too vague and uncommitted a position. And I have to say that I don't merely mean "uncommitted personally to Christ," but rather "uncommitted to basic common sense."
Well, I can only be what I am, I can only understand what I understand, and like all people I guess I make efforts to create *bridges* from one category to another category which are sometimes provisional.

At the same time I would also say, because I think it true, that while I can understand why you say, and why you must say, that what I assert generally is vague and uncommitted (in a sense you are right: I do not know what specifics to commit to and some I may not chose to commit to), on another level I feel that my understanding is not incommensurate with 'honest belief'.

And the other thing I'd say is that though I understand what 'common sense' means, generally, I do think there are inner dimensions to spiritual understanding, and understanding of life, that do not conform to *common sense*. There are somethings that one is advised to remain quiet about so as not to 'stir the pot' and upset people.

I will say (agree) that my position is weird, but I cannot say at this point that it is wrong.

But that is the wonderful thing about these conversations: everything can be brought out and examined.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:49 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:25 pm Lace: Why would we think there's 'a being'?

Why would we think there's not?
To think there is something there must be some evidence of it--something that can be seen or heard or perceived in some other way that raises the question, "what is that?"

Everything that is perceived is evidence of itself. What is the evidence for, "a being?"
If you walk up on a camp fire (there's no one there: just the nice little camp fire [logs arranged just so, a circle of stones surroundin' those logs], will you take that camp fire as a natural event or as sumthin' put in place by a now absent person?

The camp fire is evidence of itself, yes, but it's also evidence of an intelligent, purposeful, currently absent, fire starter, right?
Post Reply