Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:11 pm
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.
Well, that is a choice. And one can make it, of course.

But either what Christianity says about reality is true, or it is false. If it is false, you lose nothing by "keeping it away" from you. But what if what it says is actually true?

A "nothing" religion is worth nothing. Any belief worth having is going to impinge on one's view of reality. And refusing a true belief is simply refusing reality itself.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:20 pm
Well, that is a choice. And one can make it, of course.
Don't keep doing this, IC. It is not a choice; whatever people have in them that attracts them to religion is glaringly conspicuous by its absence in me.
But either what Christianity says about reality is true, or it is false.
Whatever Christianity says about anything is of absolutely no interest to me. What any religion says about anything is of no interest to me.
But what if what it says is actually true?
I am quite satisfied that it isn't, and you also know that it isn't. Even if you believe it consciously, which I have my doubts about, you don't believe it at a deeper level; no one does.
"nothing" religion is worth nothing. Any belief worth having is going to impinge on one's view of reality. And refusing a true belief is simply refusing reality itself.
That is a ridiculous assertion. You know as well as I do that religion is specifically designed to inhibit any search for truth.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5145
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 7:52 pmWhether 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.
The god defined by a priestly class in the Hebrew Torah is an amalgamation of voices. If you regard that 'voice' as, literally, having been intoned by the god Yahweh (as if thundering from on high) I will not be able to convince you otherwise. In any case, what I have recently been writing about this voice, and Yahweh, is exactly what I think: it is a literary creation or more properly put a theological creation. The purposes of all of that are various. At this point I do not have an allegiance to that Voice. However, that does not mean that I reject what I might call Hebrew genius. So the issue becomes seeing and distinguishing valuable content from that in which it is mixed.

For this reason I am and I suggest that all people are ethically obligated to see as clearly as they can into these matters. And I recommend seeing though that voice. But I do grasp that you will not do this, that you cannot do this, because doing that would cause the pillars that uphold your believe to tremble.
Really lame thinking, AJ. You used to be able to do better.
What I want to say here, because I make all efforts to respect the forum, would be indecent indeed. I'll leave it to you to guess . . .
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.
Don't lecture me on the god of any particular testament. I do not regard you as an authority or a resource of value. It is not you who should talk, it is you who should learn to listen. I grant you that there is a concept of a god "utterly intolerant of evil". And I also grant you that there exists a notion of 'rescue' and 'deliverance'. But I do not grant you that you have any valuable sense of what these words and notions mean. Or put another way I regard your ideas about them as perversions. And I assure you I am capable of explaining in detail what I mean.
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 necessary 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.
You are stuck in a falsely-premised logic-loop. You are referring to a concept. I am referring to the actual voice and what the voice is said to have said. I am also looking at Yahweh as an emblem of non-righteousness insofar as the Voice is one handled and wielded by a priest class for dubious purposes. I do not have an alternative. Or if I were to concoct one it would be through the faulty, degenerate reasoning for which you have gained for yourself a certain fame.
And He saves all those who will believe in Him, just as a merciful God would.
I look at these matters -- of 'being saved' of 'rescue' and everything having to do with getting on a proper path in life -- with very different eyes and also background. The mysterious and mystical *belief* that you say is needed (here you speak as an Evangelical) has, even in Christian theological history, been filled out by far greater and wider concepts. I do not believe in your *belief* nor your sentimental 'salvation moment'.

What I do believe in (and understand to to true) is beyond your capacity to hear. You are captured by your beliefs. They render you unable to hear for all that you have ears.

The god-concept you define, and what is pictured in the Bible, is not a merciful being. This was carefully and painstakingly demonstrated to you by Harry.
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.
The statement you make here has to be carefully parsed.

It is very true that *the world* (i.e. people, the masses, the common people -- in truth all people generally) have a willful and a rebellious nature. We know, for example, that children require training and channeling. We know that without it they turn out badly. So we know that people generally, like children, require education-structures that they agree to submit to. There certainly exists straight force and coercion (necessary) but there also exists upper echelons of persons who *get it* and who agree to surrender to authority.

Once you understand that culture requires *sets of rules* and application of conventions, what I term paideia then makes sense. It can be examined in a rational light. We definitely agree that 'authority' was seriously, and deleteriously, challenged and that disobedience to rational rules became the order of the day. And we also grasp that the Christian/Catholic social teaching which had been the sound base of cultural parameters has been seriously and consistently attacked.

All of this you and I both know.

So what the *world* hates and why it hates it, requires a careful conversation. It may indeed resist the conventional moral and ethical models. And I definitely stand on the side of understanding what those models are, or were, and why they existed. But those models can only be presented and understood through processes of rational exposition. If people desire to act badly and perpetuate evil, they will, with our without religious authority.

Justice requires rational definition. And since 'god's mercy' is, largely, an empty abstraction, if we are to talk about mercy it will only have meaning if we talk about our own merciful capabilities.

There are many many reasons why the *Christian message* has become unpopular. I do not think you really understand much of this. And you do nothing except to drive people away from it -- were understanding possible.

So the way I look at you is just as I say: a religious fanatic incapable of sound reasoning. It is a terrifying defect, from where I sit.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:48 pm Nick wrote on another thread:
1 Corinthians 2: 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

If this is true it reveals the futility of human reason for answering the question of God other than theoretically. Only the Spirit of wholeness can reveal the truth to the essence of human being. But how to open to the spirit that can reveal the truth beyond what dualistic reason is capable of?

My concern is for the young who are God’s people but are having the spirit killed in them by spirit killers and blind deniers dominant in institutions of child abuse called schools. Must they become part of the spiritually dead who will bury their dead or can they receive some kind of help that will allow them to open to grace so as to become themselves? How can they be made aware of the knowledge they are born with that they are in Plato’s cave and surrounded by influences of the World but capable of consciously inwardly turning in the direction of the light entering the cave? Naturally it won’t come from the World but from people who have become God’s people. But where do they find them and how can they avoid the many charlatans and blind believers who imitate them for worldly goals? One thing for sure; kids have it rough.
I would respond in this way:

By defining *spirit* in that way, you are referring to a monistic concept. But the facts seem to be that you have to get what *the spirit* communicates through a specific, cultural and historic context. So for a person who reads Corinthians the context is already there: it is the *picture* that has been revealed in the NT Bible. It is 1,000 years of familiarity with the Occidental Canon.

But what if one had no familiarity with all of that context? Let's say some person on the Indian subcontinent 800 years ago -- let's say in Bengal. Here, I translated it 1 Corinthians 2:14 into Bangla:
আত্মাবিহীন ব্যক্তি ঈশ্বরের আত্মা থেকে আসা জিনিসগুলিকে গ্রহণ করে না কিন্তু সেগুলিকে মূর্খতা বলে মনে করে এবং সেগুলি বুঝতে পারে না কারণ সেগুলি কেবল আত্মার মাধ্যমেই বোঝা যায়৷
Obviously, that person would have to access his own contextual and symbolical system and would have to translate the ideas into those terms that made sense to him. How would that person then talk about the idea presented? First, it would have to have been translated into patterns of ideation already developed, but developed within that other conceptual system. It would also have to fit into the cultural mores of that other culture. Then, if diagrams or symbolic artwork were created it would take the form of the symbols and patterns of that culture.

This is actually from Mediaeval Bengal (Chaitanya Mahaprabu and his entourage):

Image

Now, if human reason cannot sufficiently reveal or explain to a student whatever is to be revealed by *Spirit* as you present the notion here, and if we are still in 9th century Bengal, the question will arise: What method will reveal it? How will The Spirit speak? And what will it say? And what will it recommend? And what sort of person will arise through contact with this Spirit?

How will 'wholeness' be defined in 9th century Bengal? How was it defined? Would the idea even translate? But if it could not translate (since when we refer to *wholeness* we refer to ideas and concepts very much from our own context) it would have to be approximated, would it not? So wholeness would be integrity in relation to one's own traditions or the way life is seen and understood. That is, an entire metaphysical picture (such as one from the Bengal culture of the 9th century would understand as *noram* and as *right*).

Need I go on in speaking of the variations even in Bengal culture of the 9th century in respect to dualistic/non-dualistic philosophical ideas?

The remaining paragraph makes great sense to me -- I swear I understand it! -- but how could the unity and (as I say) the agreement necessary for those children to be raised up into a conceptually unified world be enforced today? The 'school' that you envision is, quite literally, an impossibility. Though there might be some environment, somewhere, some monastery that had a small school attached where a coherent and cohesive picture (of the world) could be taught.

But those who emerged from that school would be *strangers in a strange land*.
AJ
Now, if human reason cannot sufficiently reveal or explain to a student whatever is to be revealed by *Spirit* as you present the notion here, and if we are still in 9th century Bengal, the question will arise: What method will reveal it? How will The Spirit speak? And what will it say? And what will it recommend? And what sort of person will arise through contact with this Spirit?
This is the same argument used by secularists to define the influence of the Spirit through dianoia or (discursive thought). Many go berzerk when someone questions it. But what if the higher spiritual energy of grace doesn't influence Man through dianoia but influences man through the experience of noesis or (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)? In short, Man remembers what always was. His being is now capable of remembering and not limited to the worship of the earth.

Of course if secularism accepts noesis it is no longer secularism and the potential to remember what has been forgotten rather then learning something new.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 1:47 pmI am going to suppose that what I am saying here makes sense to you and the reason I put it tentatively is because my impression is that many people who are fragmented do not realize that they are so. So what is one outcome of the fragmentation I refer to? A type of mental unbalance. And what is the core cause? The loss of the ground under one's feet. That is, metaphysical certainty.
Forgive me for interrupting!

We can't live in the serendipity land of metaphysical certainty forever, can we. That would be insane since belief in the metaphysical has a tendency to create dwarf mentalities if accepted for too long. And what is a dwarf mentality in this instance? It is one which ages and never grows. The so-called integration established by the metaphysical, -which never really existed since the tenets provided were as well argued over incessantly across the centuries accompanied by a great deal of bloodshed - is in itself a myth deteriorating into a lie. History shows, without question, that the greatest cause of mental imbalance is precisely what has so far been metaphysically imagined and accepted. In spite of the high status inherent in the term "metaphysics", all such systems are organic and eventually corrupt flowing from the inside out; a process in which "fragmentation" becomes a necessary cleansing as a possible prelude to what Wordsworth called a renovated mind...until it too falls apart!
Last edited by Dubious on Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:42 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:20 pm
Well, that is a choice. And one can make it, of course.
Don't keep doing this, IC. It is not a choice; whatever people have in them that attracts them to religion is glaringly conspicuous by its absence in me.
"Doing this?" What am I "doing"?

I'm just pointing out the obvious. People don't become Christians because they "like to be religious" or something. That's a complete waste of time.

The only reason to do it is if you really, actually believe it's the truth. It's not like a person can fool God about that.
But what if what it says is actually true?
I am quite satisfied that it isn't,
How?
...you don't believe it at a deeper level; no one does.
Actually, I do. Enough to stake my whole life on it, as well as my eternal soul. I doubt you can find a way to be more definite than that.

You may not believe it...I have no reason to think you're being disingenuous...but it doesn't mean nobody else does, of course.
"nothing" religion is worth nothing. Any belief worth having is going to impinge on one's view of reality. And refusing a true belief is simply refusing reality itself.
That is a ridiculous assertion. You know as well as I do that religion is specifically designed to inhibit any search for truth.[/quote]
:D I'm always so amused when people use a phrase like "you know as well as I do..." It almost invariably signals a bluff.

No, I don't "know" that. Quite the oppoisite: I think Christianity IS the truth. If I didn't, I'd have no reason to be a Christian at all.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal, do you have a need for meaning? If you do, is it satisfied by the workings of the world? Does the world satisfy your need for meaning or do you ever feel there is something more then what the world offers? Is it possible that the essence of religion, not man made secular interpretations, deals with the question of meaning
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:27 pm
"Doing this?" What am I "doing"?
What you keep doing is treating me as if I have the capability to join you in your misguided belief system, and all I need is enough persuasion. I am not wired up for religion; please just accept it.
I'm always so amused when people use a phrase like "you know as well as I do..." It almost invariably signals a bluff.
And I find that when someone claims to be always amused by something critical of them, it is a sure sign that they are far from amused.
No, I don't "know" that. Quite the oppoisite: I think Christianity IS the truth.
Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but I'm not convinced you do. Not that it matters.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:38 pm Harbal, do you have a need for meaning?
I assume you are talking about meaning in relation to our existence. I am always looking for explanations, but I do not think there is any meaning, and no, I don't have a need for any.
Is it possible that the essence of religion, not man made secular interpretations, deals with the question of meaning
I daresay religion offers meaning, but it is only supposed meaning. Religion might have value to those who are unaware of that, and it does seem to be the case that many people actually do want meaning. I don't criticise those who look for meaning, and all I ask is that they don't criticise me for not looking at the world and our existence in terms of meaning.
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 8:01 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:59 pm
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.
From Wikipedia: Christianity is the most prevalent religion in the United States. Estimates from 2017 suggest that between 65% and 75% of the US population is Christian (about 230 to 250 million). More recent estimates from 2021 suggest that 63% of the US population is Christian (about 210 million).

The point I was trying to make is that Christianity has become far more accepted and common than at the time the Bible was written, so your claims of being hated for it based on archaic claims/beliefs are a bit out-of-date and unrealistic. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly in the present moment, it's your warped presentation that brings out the responses you get. The fact that you glorify yourself further for that, shows the bottomless extent of your intoxication. :D
Last edited by Lacewing on Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Christianity

Post by popeye1945 »

"The more one increases one's knowledge, the more one increases one's sorrow." Schopenhauer. This is something Christians needn't to worry about.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 12:14 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:01 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:59 pm
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.
From Wikipedia: Christianity is the most prevalent religion in the United States. Estimates from 2017 suggest that between 65% and 75% of the US population is Christian (about 230 to 250 million). More recent estimates from 2021 suggest that 63% of the US population is Christian (about 210 million).

The point I was trying to make is that Christianity has become far more accepted and common than at the time the Bible was written, so your claims of being hated for it based on archaic claims/beliefs are a bit out-of-date and unrealistic. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly in the present moment, it's your warped presentation that brings out the responses you get. The fact that you glorify yourself further for that, shows the bottomless extent of your intoxication. :D
Christendom has become far more accepted and common but Christianity has become less accepted and rare so much so that its pure form survives hidden from the world.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Harbal wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:06 pm
Nick_A wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:38 pm Harbal, do you have a need for meaning?
I assume you are talking about meaning in relation to our existence. I am always looking for explanations, but I do not think there is any meaning, and no, I don't have a need for any.
Is it possible that the essence of religion, not man made secular interpretations, deals with the question of meaning
I daresay religion offers meaning, but it is only supposed meaning. Religion might have value to those who are unaware of that, and it does seem to be the case that many people actually do want meaning. I don't criticise those who look for meaning, and all I ask is that they don't criticise me for not looking at the world and our existence in terms of meaning.
Gurdjieff's 29 aphorism: "Blessed is he who has a soul, blessed is he who has none, but woe and grief to him who has it in embryo." Many people are content with meaning as conditioned by society, family, friends, and education. They can be very good people and no reason to attack it? My heart goes out to the minority whose need for meaning transcends what the world offers. They live between two worlds and must suffer this condition. They have the potential for something far greater
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:29 am Christendom has become far more accepted and common but Christianity has become less accepted and rare so much so that its pure form survives hidden from the world.
You sure love stories! 8)
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Christianity

Post by Gary Childress »

To be honest, I feel more connection to Harbal and Lacewing here than to IC or Nick. I'm sure IC and Nick are good people in their own right, however, Harbal and Lace seem much more down-to-Earth to me, tolerant and accepting of human weakness. I guess the main thing I don't like about Christianity is that it is too ascetic and judgmental. I don't tolerate murder and things of that nature, but if a person wants to jerk off to a video, not believe in God or give God the middle finger because he would rather blame God's design than other people for his/her hardships, then I feel more at home with that person. And if someone's god won't accept me in their heaven because I won't worship that god or whatever, then I feel like I would be more comfortable not being in the same "heaven" with that god. I want to enjoy worldly pleasures as much as I am able to without harming others to an inordinate or undue extent.
Post Reply