Christianity

[Walker]

Now, as for determinism, Immanuel Can has demonstrated his prodigious capacity for cogent argument... when the topic is right. He has spoken not a false word on this topic. Oddly, it has been a case of one fool schooling another - but then, we're all fools in our own ways.

Let's toss this into the pool of fools and see what floats, what sinks, if what is made is made of wood and if wood is made of truth and also sun.

The only way to live in hell is by the transmogrification of the hellish anguish energy into doing energy, when doing is defined as ordering whatever portion of the universe that is within reach. The only escape from hell is no relationship with a person, place, thing or thought … but not only is that not living, it is not living it up. This is not to say that this should not be. This is to say the way things are in hell. And since everyone is a sinner, this is a handy pro-tip for folks who just want to get along with a peace of peace of mind.

The moment one is redeemed from the current eternal state of hell, one no longer has anguish energy for the doing, but one still has energy for the doing, although without anguish there is much less to be done. Much less guilt for which to atone. What to do with this energy? The answer is as natural as breathing, it channels back into awareness and such a cycle quickly leaves condemnation in the dust, the dust stirred by opening never-before portals to satchitananda. Such a cyclical process is a purification.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Could you [Nick_A --Harry] 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!

AJ, this is almost exactly the question that several of us have tried at various points to ask of you! Can you take it upon yourself to offer your own answer?!

Well, first, in case it is not acutely obvious, in this period of time my ideas have changed tremendously, or I have shifted perspectives. The last 6 months have been *internally dramatic*. I've said a few times that I am here for my own purposes and so can't really be bothered if the full dimensions of my own views are understood or not. But I will try to outline for you why it is that Christianity took a certain precedence for me (though I have already explained of course) and where I stand in relation to it now. Have I 'substantially changed' my position? One might think that yet I do not think that is accurate.

I delved into Christianity out of 'solidarity' with the Occident. Certainly because of all literary and artistic productions but also our political systems. But I already had my own spirituality that I had gained over the course of my youth. I resolved at a certain moment to, let's say, force myself into a Christian conception This was a conscious choice and, I see now, influenced by something that René Guénon wrote: the place where pure metaphysics, or at least a purer metaphysics, still exists in our modern Occident is in the Catholic Church -- but obviously of the more original, certainly pre-Vatican ll type. Rama Coomaraswamy's The Destruction of the Christian Tradition helped me to understand how the essence of Christianity was being undermined, and to some degree why, and at that time I was reading not only René Guénon but Julius Evola and those of the Traditionalist school of thought.

But of course if there is an 'essence' or 'central core' that is being undermined the next question is What exactly is that? And what is one referring to?

Certainly you have paid attention to my recent bold stance in regard to Hebrew idea-imperialism. I know that, among pro-Christian or Christian-embedded theologians, that the *idea of God* or the *conception of God* or *the image of God* is said to have been progressively revealed as the Hebrew scriptures progress. When one looks at it all over again though, and this is true in my case, the entire Hebrew mythology seems not only absurd but deeply destructive -- especially to Jews. The Bible itself, especially Genesis with the Joseph portion, outlines anti-Semitism. A proto-Jew is given protection and aid. He gets rich. He fucks over those that lent him aid and support. And then robs his host blind. And God Himself stands behind all this. Then, he is 'given' a land of milk & honey but must annihilate the people living there at God's behest.

When I encountered Immanuel Can, a religious fanatic who, in fact, wants to be a Jew and whose religious position as a modernist, Evangelical Christian, is really a branch of the larger Zionist movement, it became necessary to confront this (modern) aspect of lunatic Evangelicalism. This endeavor, of course, has all sort of lines of connection to contemporary issues, orientations and platforms and is rather complex. This is an extremely fraught area and one that is deeply contentious and even dangerous (to talk about).

So I think you can recognize why I feel the need to reject all of this, or most of it, or the larger portion. Except I must say that many people anchor themselves in Reality, quite literally, through their Christian faith. And though the leaders of these various Evangelical splinter-sects are Christian Zionists to a man, and Christian Zionism is utterly prevalent, I do not really have a position against this but rather I simply notice that this is what is going on. I do not even know how to look at it or how to interpret it. To talk about *larger machinations* in our world is simply too contentious to be contemplated. Yet, and very clearly, a great deal of all of this is being discussed, if discussion it could be called, all over the place. Thus there is a political or philosophical position that takes a stand against Christianity as a universal cultural model because it has been *coopted* by larger, directive political powers.

But what about the 'metaphysical essence'? Well, I think that Nick explores all of that and has made reference after reference. I read Needlman's book Lost Christianity: A Journey of Rediscovery years back, and understood its premise: at that level to be a Christian is to be a contemplative and to have nothing to do with 'The Beast' as Nick often makes plain. Needleman is really, in my view, a sort of New Age Jew. That is he is not really a Jew (because to be a Jew is to be Orthodox and to deviate from orthodoxy is to begin assimilation), so he exists within a weird middle-territory and, for this reason, his 'teaching' has a certain popularity.

In my case while I do not reject traditional Christianity necessarily I do look at it differently. If I had to make a statement about where I stand in relation to more general, or more original metaphysics, I would refer to Guénon as here.

Obviously, and idealistically, I have strong inclinations toward social and political conservatism. But the irony is that I am a product, in many ways, of its exactly and radical opposite. So I am not really one to be a 'staunch advocate' for a recurrence (return) to more strict forms. My stand is that modernity is an expression of many different forms of radicalism though. And Liberalism in the sense of hyper-liberalism is an outcome that is, ipso facto, and observably so, destructive.

So what I observe is that many Christians, of various strains, and definitely Evangelicals and also those of the Pentecostal branch (I am speaking of modern American Protestant forms) use Christianity as an anchor for their very selves. I cannot be unsupportive of this because if you rip away from someone their anchor you cast them into nihilistic confusion. But at the same time I cannot refuse to reveal what I actually think (about this position).

By noting that what Nick talks about does not in fact depend on either Jesus or the Bible:

Nick: As understand it, the essence of Christianity as a perennial tradition always was.

I am, beyond any doubt, affirming and reaffirming my commitment to an original metaphysical concept. These ideas precede the Hebrew revelation and also the advent or creation of the Christian religion.

Harry: AJ, this is almost exactly the question that several of us have tried at various points to ask of you!

Not so. You (and you alone in fact, Henry has very little conception of what even to ask or why to ask it, given his orientation) have asked me to describe what I feel is valuable in Christianity.

[Harry Baird]

Walker,

I honestly have little idea as to what you're talking about. We were talking about determinism. How do your comments relate to that?

Also, what on Earth you mean by "hellish anguish energy" which you seem to think can suddenly be turned into redemption, upon which the priorly anguished person wonders, "What to do with this energy?" Is it really that simple to flip between needy and provider? Who or what supports that flip? And why? Is it Divinity? In the form of Christ? Or what?

[Harry Baird]

AJ, thank you for that expansive response, which expresses your perspective very well.

Just as you say that you "do not really have a position against this", I ,similarly, do not really have a position against your post, which seems fair to me insofar as I am capable of an evidential assessment of its contentions (which is not complete).

That said...

Harry: AJ, this is almost exactly the question that several of us have tried at various points to ask of you!

Not so. You (and you alone in fact, Henry has very little conception of what even to ask or why to ask it, given his orientation) have asked me to describe what I feel is valuable in Christianity.

...I am not so sure that this is fair. I have asked you, in effect: "Once you have stripped back so much as you do from Christianity - especially including the foundational concept that Christ (as Saviour) is the fundamental anchor of the Christian religion - then what is left?"

[Immanuel Can]

No, fool,

Good to see you again, Harry. Always a pleasure.

Christianity is contradictory

And yet, you insist it doesn't "contradict" anything, since no basis for a claim of justice exists. What grants you such a claim? Evolution? Materialism? Human wishes? You never answer that question.

Meanwhile, there's nothing Christianity "contradicts," except your wishes, it would seem. And that, yes, it contradicts that. But so far as the suppostiions Christianity itself relies upon, there is no contradiction between qualities like righteousness, truth and justice. So I don't know what you're on about.

You've got no warrant for your own complaint. If I were to accept that you are right, and there's no God (unless you wish to invoke another kind of god, I suppose), then there's no basis for you to claim that anything is "unfair" or "unjust." Under things like Materialism, Physicalism, Progressivism, and Social Constructivism, what ever you get is simply whatever you get.

There's no basis for a complaint, and nobody listening if you do complain. The uncaring cosmos does not care about your sense of "fairness." It's just a delusion you're having.

[Walker]

Walker,

I honestly have little idea as to what you're talking about. We were talking about determinism. How do your comments relate to that?

Also, what on Earth you mean by "hellish anguish energy" which you seem to think can suddenly be turned into redemption, upon which the priorly anguished person wonders, "What to do with this energy?" Is it really that simple to flip between needy and provider? Who or what supports that flip? And why? Is it Divinity? In the form of Christ? Or what?

Sure. Ok.

If you make it out of hell, that's the result of determinism. I guess. Determinism is not a word I use. It's jargon.

Seems to me, folks are hell bent on bending reality to jargon.

Relevant enough?

[Harry Baird]

What grants you such a claim [to the meaning of justice]?

Uh, the meaning of the word, fool. You don't get to define words for yourself, especially when that definition totally contradicts common understanding. Words do have meanings, in case you weren't aware (which, of course, duplicitously, you are). We can discuss where those meanings come from, but we can't deny the meanings themselves.

[Harry Baird]

Relevant enough?

Nah, I have no idea what you're on about.

[Immanuel Can]

What grants you such a claim [to justice]?

Uh, the meaning of the word,

Sorry, Harry...too funny. You don't get things just because you decide to want them.

You can't just invent a word, or even use one that has some agreed-upon meaning (even supposing everybody's conception of "justice" were the same, which it's not). But you can't just say if there is a definition for something, like "unicorn" or "pixie," that you can then say, "The world owes me pixies."

Here's what you don't realize...or don't want to face. That your use of the word "justice" has no more behind it than a (limited) social convention. It's exactly on the level of "unicorn" or "pixie." There's no reality that promises it...and that's if I believe your worldview, not mine.

So you are not owed any "justice," because your use of the word has no objective meaning at all. It's not grounded in anything. You were never promised it.

Thus, your complaint amounts to " God is not sufficently XXXXX."

Well, since there's no such objective, promised thing as "XXXXX," there's no complaint.

[iambiguous]

If I were to accept that you are right, and there's no God (unless you wish to invoke another kind of god, I suppose), then there's no basis for you to claim that anything is "unfair" or "unjust." Under things like Materialism, Physicalism, Progressivism, and Social Constructivism, what ever you get is simply whatever you get.

There's no basis for a complaint, and nobody listening if you do complain. The uncaring cosmos does not care about your sense of "fairness." It's just a delusion you're having.

Well put.

In the sense that, yes, if there is no omniscient/omnipotent Creator, how are mere mortals not back to this:

"In the absence of God, all things are permitted".

Only, my point, of course, revolves around taking your own God into discussions of these factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path

2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

God and this:

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

Given this thread, the Christian God.

[Immanuel Can]

If I were to accept that you are right, and there's no God (unless you wish to invoke another kind of god, I suppose), then there's no basis for you to claim that anything is "unfair" or "unjust." Under things like Materialism, Physicalism, Progressivism, and Social Constructivism, what ever you get is simply whatever you get.

There's no basis for a complaint, and nobody listening if you do complain. The uncaring cosmos does not care about your sense of "fairness." It's just a delusion you're having.

Well put.

In the sense that, yes, if there is no omniscient/omnipotent Creator, how are mere mortals not back to this:

"In the absence of God, all things are permitted".

That's exactly where they are. But not just that "all things are permitted," but that nothing else is ever even promised.

If life seems "unfair," then too bad; because life is all that there is. There's no "fair" or "unfair," no "just" or "unjust," there's just whatever paradise or dumpster fire actually goes on in life.

There is no court of appeal on that, either. What you got, you got. Live with it. That is the only possibility. You certainly have no grounds to complain about it, and nothing that cares if you do complain.

[Harry Baird]

What grants you such a claim [to justice]?

Uh, the meaning of the word,

Sorry, Harry...too funny.

Neither of us is joking or amused, you insincere twat.

You don't get things just because you decide to want them.

Yeah, that cuts both ways, fool. You don't get to redefine the meaning of "justice" based on a perversion of the term on the Biblical convention, as, essentially, "almost as unjust as can be horrifically imagined" - at least, not unless you're an agent in an Orwellian nightmare.

[Immanuel Can]

Uh, the meaning of the word,

Sorry, Harry...too funny.

Neither of us is joking or amused, you insincere twat.

You'd be surprised.

Look, Harry: I'm not trying to anger you. I'm quite calm about this. However, I find that when people result to unsavoury epithets, it's never because they feel themselves to be in a strong position, rationally speaking. It's because they sense there's a chasm of logical failure yawning for them, and they're trying to stay out of it by drawing attention to something irrelevant to the rationality of the argument.

I'll put it concisely, for your consideration.

Since, according to you, there is objective promise of "justice" from the universe, then there is no basis for any complaint that things aren't "just."

It's just that simple.

[Nick_A]

A J.

But what about the 'metaphysical essence'? Well, I think that Nick explores all of that and has made reference after reference. I read Needlman's book Lost Christianity: A Journey of Rediscovery years back, and understood its premise: at that level to be a Christian is to be a contemplative and to have nothing to do with 'The Beast' as Nick often makes plain. Needleman is really, in my view, a sort of New Age Jew. That is he is not really a Jew (because to be a Jew is to be Orthodox and to deviate from orthodoxy is to begin assimilation), so he exists within a weird middle-territory and, for this reason, his 'teaching' has a certain popularity.

I posted this on Onlinephilosophyclub. It was obvious it asks for an idea that is no longer interesting. So I thought to try if from another angle. But could you answer the question of the OP?

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =4&t=18275

What is Christianity? What is its purpose?
Post by Nick_A » Sat Oct 08, 2022 2:13 pm

First of all a true seeker of truth must admit that we have a lot of opinions as to what Christianity is but we don't know of one who knows. To begin with we must distinguish between knowledge and opinions defined by Plato. Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; while knowledge derives from the world of timeless Forms, or essences.

Opinions are learned resulting from our sensations. In other words they have an outward origin. Knowledge is remembered by the depths of our essence. They have an inner origin. The purpose of Christianity refers to what we ARE while the purpose of secular Christendom concerns what we DO.

Kierkegaard wrote:
People who perhaps never once enter a church, never think about God, never mention his name except in oaths! People upon whom it has never dawned that they might have any obligation to God, people who either regard it as a maximum to be guiltless of transgressing criminal law, or do not count even this quite necessary! Yet all these people, even those who assert that no God exists, are all of them Christians, call themselves Christians, are recognized as Christians by the State, are buried as Christians by the Church, are certified as Christians for eternity.
(quoted in Protestant Thought in the 19th Century by Claude Welch p.294)

Christendom has done away with Christianity, without being quite aware of it. The consequence is that, if anything is to be done, one must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom.
ibid p.295

What is the true seeker of truth to do? The depths of their being, their hearts, are drawn to experience timeless forms and essences. Yet they are continually bombarded with attractive opinions on what to do. Such a person has to inwardly grow beyond attachments to opinions to experience the knowledge which attracts them. Such a person must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom. But how in a world of darkness which openly rejects Christianity since it doesn't know what it is begin to remember? It doesn't know its purpose which is , with the help of the Spirit, to remember what has been forgotten.

[Harry Baird]

Look, Harry: I'm not trying to anger you. I'm quite calm about this. However, I find that when people result to unsavoury epithets, it's never because they feel themselves to be in a strong position, rationally speaking. It's because they sense there's a chasm of logical failure yawning for them, and they're trying to stay out of it by drawing attention to something irrelevant to the rationality of the argument.

I am under no illusion that your position is remotely strong, let alone defensible. My reaction is based on the horror that an otherwise intelligent being (you) is as incapable of recognising the appallingly irrational basis of his fundamental beliefs as you are; and, more to the point, that he would try to promote this sick mess of a belief system to others on a public forum.

I have rigorously pointed out to you the contradiction or otherwise doublespeak of that sick belief system, but you appear to be immune to reason. At least I can hope that my efforts have been of use to onlookers.

I'll put it concisely, for your consideration.

Since, according to you, there is objective promise of "justice" from the universe, then there is no basis for any complaint that things aren't "just."

It's just that simple.

Precisely, when we substitute "a loving, omnipotent God" for "the universe". In that case, there is no eternal hell, because that wouldn't be just.

Think about it for just a little, would you, fool?