Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

Speaking of videos, Videodrome . . .

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, if you want to put it like that: You have presented to me, under the heading of Christianity, a narrative; a story; an alleged state of affairs; a version of events, none of which I believe to contain any truth. I could say more or less the same thing about any other religion, or set of religious beliefs, that I have been made aware of.

That, I can understand, as a statement.

The reasons for it, not so much. But the utterance itself at least adds up. My problem with the reasoning is the phrase, "...none of which I believe to contain any truth." For while one may be skeptical of particular statements in any particular belief system, it's surely obvious that every belief system also contains claims that are obviously true. And that would be true of even the most wild imaginings...they're surely anchored in at least one or two real facts about the world.

So "none of which..."? I can hardly credit that. There must be something you think is true.

I have to put that down to hyperbole. I can make no other sense of it.

If you need another reason to believe...like, say, a feeling, or a disposition...then you don't believe it at all,

And that is what I often suspect to be the case with religious people.

Indeed, I'm sure it's sometimes the case.

It it always? I don't think so. I've met people who at least seem very sincerely wrong, if not always sincerely right.

And of course, rational persuasion is the right way to form a belief.

That in itself is reason enought not to hold any religious beliefs. Religion is not rational; if it were rational it wouldn't be religion; it would be something else. Religion always requires a belief in things that are not part of our experience of the ordinary world, and in fact run counter to it.

Oh, I don't think that's so, at all. Rather, I would say that (at least in some respects) every religion tries to take the data of the real world and give some account of it. I've not yet run into any religion that could entirely avoid the necessity of grounding itself in some set of facts.

And if such a belief system were ever constructed, I suspect nobody at all would ever believe it.

Maybe that's why you don't see "religious" people as being sincere. If your assumption is that they see themselves as operating in defiance of facts, then you would have to think they were always secretly suspicious they were fooling themselves, and they'd all be in "bad faith."

You may choose a different way, H., if you so desire.

Choose a different way to do what?

To believe.

But I cannot make heads or tails of the claim that you "have no capability." That would be no capability to be persuaded by reason.

If Christianity contained rationality, it would not put so much emphasis on faith.

Ah, you've misunderstood "faith," or at least, you've misunderstood the Christian understanding of what it is. (I won't speak for other dogmas...their defenders can defend themselves, I think.)

Faith, in Christian thought, is not something like, "defiance of facts." It's not refusal of rationality. Rather, faith comes into play, for the Christian, whenever all the available facts have been gathered in, and though they may be many are still not absolutely conclusive; but still there is something that must be decided.

In the Christian sense, a scientist exercises faith whenever he proposes the meaning of his latest set of experiments -- for he does not know that the very next trial, or some piece of data he has neglected and misread, will not disprove his theory in the next five minutes. Indeed, it sometimes happens so. But he ventures, based on the data he has in hand, that perhaps his thesis is warranted; and so he risks proposing it. He trusts his own diligence, his own experimental methods, and the set of tests he has devised, and puts his own reputation at stake by advancing a conclusion. That's faith.

Or a young man wishes to know if a young woman will go on a date with him. He has some evidence -- she is pretty and he is handsome, perhaps; or she has spoken attentively to him at a party; or her friends have suggested they'd be a good couple; or that he cannot believe the twisting in the pit of his own stomach is not, on some level, possibly reciprocated -- but whatever the reason, he has to have faith. Because unless he ventures to her door and asks, he will simply never know whether or not she could want him. He doesn't have a perfect data set to reassure him; but he has a great deal, perhaps, to give him courage...and so he goes, and the facts reveal whether or not he was right to invest his faith in that project.

Or, when you got up this morning you did not know whether or not this was the day you would die. In fact, you are sure, and can be sure, that one day, you will. But you don't suppose you will. You have faith that the day will be kind to you, that your activities have at least some chance of success, and that fatality is not guaranteed to await you when you step out of bed. It took a modest faith to put your feet on the floor and get up and face the day. But it was faith nonetheless. You could have no absolute assurance the day would not be your last.

These things are faith. But they are surrounded by data, by fact, by experiences and by realities. They are not belief in defiance of these things.

They are rational. In fact, they are also unavoidable.

We all have faith. The main difference is what we choose to have faith in.

[Dubious]

This Postmodern man cannot even conceive of meaning because he has no purpose, and thus what he does & thinks literally has no meaning especially to himself. He is a vein in which there is no pulse. Meaning has no meaning! He cannot be troubled by the notion as it simply takes too much energy and he is laziness personified. He is like an expended battery that no longer takes a charge. A lump. Since he is incapable of *taking a charge*, but yet must live, he becomes, more or less, a dullness machine. A droning tape-recorded voice of sheer annulment. Bring forth any monument of man's valuations and he yawns, burps, farts . . . or ejaculates.

Wonderful prose poem there AJ! Unfortunately that seems to be its only merit.

There are those who need and those who don't need being quite content with what is provided. Those who need seem to be forever searching and thus more likely to be empty until they find what they're looking for...which never signifies anything beyond what the word itself signifies, i.e., meaning,...a rapid circular dance resembling that of a kitten trying to catch its own tail! Nice to watch for a while, but it soon gets boring! Then there are always those who claim to have finally found it like IC whose value, being greatly regarded as godlike or god-given, there can be no limit to the absurdity employed in defending it.

What's nauseating in these intense efforts to find meaning - which can only be manufactured by those who find it indispensable - is the inherent Übermensch complex vis-a-vis those who have no such yearnings and require none of your metaphysical crutches.

Going with the flow is the way to go, the true metaphysic, whose feedback is more potent and level with existence than all your useless striving for a value-added addition to a life whose preconceptions and speculations are forced to annul when it ends. Until that time, there is always time to fool yourself!

[Harbal]

You have never analyzed yourself.

There doesn't seem any point when I have you to do it for me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So . . .

Jesus is angling for Harbal through Immanuel's drab apologetics . . . the fishies ain't bitin' today!

Satan plays dirty for Immanuel's soul so that Jesus can poke him eternally with molten-hot ice-picks forever & ever & ever . . .

We need a soundtrack!

(All this because Debbie Harry starred in Videodrome. It is a game of associations!)

[Alexis Jacobi]

You have never analyzed yourself.

There doesn't seem any point when I have you to do it for me.

Je suis à votre service . . .

[Nick_A]

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.

Do you respect the freedoms intended by the American Constitution or are they worth sacrificing for the celebrated freedom to jerk off in front of a video? John Adams wrote:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 02-02-3102

While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while she continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition <, Start deletion,and, End,> Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other..................

Is a moral/religious attitude essential for freedom the results of a secular attitude and might makes right or the awareness of a universal morality? What are you willing to sacrifice in order to assure the freedom to jerk off in front of videos assuming that your goal is freedom rather than statist slavery?

Many appear to want statist slavery free of the religious impulse. It is what makes the struggle for power in America and violence in the streets attractive. It supports might make right and the struggle for power. Yet some know that once America sacrifices its moral and religious ideal, there is nothing left but the struggle for power and the eventual descent into tyranny and the eventual supremacy of the God of the state. Which do you choose?

[Nick_A]

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.

Do you respect the freedoms intended by the American Constitution or are they worth sacrificing for the celebrated freedom to jerk off in front of a video? John Adams wrote:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 02-02-3102

While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while she continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by <, Start deletion,[. . .], End,> morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition <, Start deletion,and, End,> Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other..................

Is a moral/religious attitude essential for freedom the results of a secular attitude and might makes right or the awareness of a universal morality? What are you willing to sacrifice in order to assure the freedom to jerk off in front of videos assuming that your goal is freedom rather than statist slavery?

Many appear to want statist slavery free of the religious impulse. It is what makes the struggle for power in America and violence in the streets attractive. It supports might make right and the struggle for power. Yet some know that once America sacrifices its moral and religious ideal, there is nothing left but the struggle for power and the eventual descent into tyranny and the eventual supremacy of the God of the state. Which do you choose?

[Belinda]

Harbal, I thought again, and now see that I have indeed selected from "off the shelf" what explanations suit me to credit. In my own defense I have the right to change my mind and I have the right to hold my beliefs for the time being.

It's not possible for anyone to be permanently post- modern and continue to exist. Choosing a course of action is almost continually forced upon all of us.

[Nick_A]

This thread has proven that Christianity in society has been lost to man made Christendom making it largely impotent and only a tool of the state. There are several reasons for this and the one I contemplate is the relationship between higher and lower reason:

Animal reason is pragmatic. It is only concerned with how we have become conditioned to feel "NOW". Whether we kill or cure depends on conditioned feelings. What is normally called reason is just the egoistic response to emotion. Is man capable of more than animal reason? John Uebersax sums up the question:

The word 'reason' as used today is used ambiguous in its meaning. It may denote either of two mental faculties: a lower reason associated with discursive, linear thinking, and a higher reason associated with direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths. These two faculties may be provisionally named Reason (higher reason) and rationality (lower reason). Common language and personal experience supply evidence of these being distinct faculties. So does classical philosophical literature, the locus classicus being Plato's Divided Line analogy. The effect of currently using a single word to denote both faculties not only produces confusion, but has had the effect of decreasing personal and cultural awareness of the higher faculty, Reason. Loss of a sense of Reason has arguably contributed to various psychological, social, moral, and spiritual problems of the modern age. This issue was also a central concern of 19th century Transcendentalists, who reacted to the radical empiricism of Locke. It would be advantageous to adopt consistent terms that make explicit a distinction between higher and lower reason. One possibility is to re-introduce the Greek philosophical terms nous and dianoia for the higher and lower reason, respectively. This discussion has certain parallels with the recent theories of McGilchrist (2009) concerning the increasingly left-brain hemisphere orientation of human culture..

Christian reason as opposed, to Christendom or man made Christianity, strives to experience "direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths." It is top down reason as opposed to bottom up inductive reason normal for animal reason. Yet those who can experience life as an organic whole serving a universal purpose of which the conscious evolution of man has a part, are becoming less and less. The majority serve pragmatic desires and lower reason promoted by enchantment with the results of technology

philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom

Can philosophy and its love of wisdom serve as an awakening function helping man to experience direct apprehension which is being forgotten during the worship of the results of technology? Will the results of higher reason serve to unite the essence of Christianity and science rather than serving to divide them as is normal for lower reason?

Christianity cannot be contemplated through lower reason. Yet the modern thinker idolizes lower reason lessening the awareness of higher reason contributing to the destruction of objective quality in society. What goes up must come down. Society is the same viewed as the Great Beast lacking consciousness and responding only to natural and cosmic influences normal for lower reason. It seems that hitting bottom is the logical result of the dominance of lower reason without the help of the Spirit. I do hope I'm gone before this happens.

[Harbal]

Harbal, I thought again, and now see that I have indeed selected from "off the shelf" what explanations suit me to credit. In my own defense I have the right to change my mind and I have the right to hold my beliefs for the time being.

It's not possible for anyone to be permanently post- modern and continue to exist. Choosing a course of action is almost continually forced upon all of us.

I'm not sure what you mean, Belinda, but I'd like to understand, if you have the patience to explain.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This thread has proven that Christianity in society has been lost to man made Christendom making it largely impotent and only a tool of the state. There are several reasons for this and the one I contemplate is the relationship between higher and lower reason:

Could you define the object of religiosity of the sort you see as integral to Christianity without reference to Christianity, to the advent of Jesus, outside of the Bible, and outside of the Hebrew revelation? Does the essence of Christianity depend on the incarnated, and then disincarnated, figure of Jesus?

My question is a leading one and somewhat rhetorical. But I think it is an important one to bring up. I'd rather do that now, at page 550, than later at, say 891. I'm sure you understand!

[seeds]

_______

Sorry, mis-posted
_______

[Nick_A]

This thread has proven that Christianity in society has been lost to man made Christendom making it largely impotent and only a tool of the state. There are several reasons for this and the one I contemplate is the relationship between higher and lower reason:

Could you define the object of religiosity of the sort you see as integral to Christianity without reference to Christianity, to the advent of Jesus, outside of the Bible, and outside of the Hebrew revelation? Does the essence of Christianity depend on the incarnated, and then disincarnated, figure of Jesus?

My question is a leading one and somewhat rhetorical. But I think it is an important one to bring up. I'd rather do that now, at page 550, than later at, say 891. I'm sure you understand!

“History repeats itself because man remains at the same level of being – namely, he attracts again and again the same circumstances, feels the same things, says the same things, hopes the same things, believes the same things. And yet nothing actually changes. All the articles that were written in the last war are just the same as the articles written in this war, and will be for ever and ever. But what concerns us more is that the same idea applies to ourselves, to each individual person.” Maurice Nicoll

Man on earth, in Plato's Cave, is a mechanical creature of reaction reacting as does all animal life to earthly and cosmic influences. As such everything repeats; dust to dust. Jesus efforts in life and death made it possible for those open to it to consciously change their being; to evolve into a higher quality of being. But this requires appreciating Man's being; knowing what being is. This doesn't appear to be the place for it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Man on earth, in Plato's Cave, is a mechanical creature of reaction reacting as does all animal life to earthly and cosmic influences. As such everything repeats; dust to dust. Jesus efforts in life and death made it possible for those open to it to consciously change their being; to evolve into a higher quality of being. But this requires appreciating Man's being; knowing what being is. This doesn't appear to be the place for it.

I understand that. But Plato, when conceiving of Plato's Cave (and it is a multi-layered metaphor) had no access to Jesus nor the Holy Spirit if one understand those things to have come into existence in the specific moment of time (Advent and Pentecost). I want to make my question as plain as possible: Is the 'changing of our being' dependent, specifically, on the advent of Jesus?

Please note that I am not, at least I do not think so, outside of being able to understand what you have been saying for quite some months (and apparently years). I do grasp 'the higher dimensions' and also that influences can come to bear on one that transform. True, this is not the place for talking about all of that. But what did you expect? But I hope that you do not feel that no one was able or is able to understand what you are getting at.

My interest in these conversations is ... what is it? It is for me about clarifying ideas that pertain to the mundane world -- contemporary society and cultural affairs.