Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[FlashDangerpants]

You are a pervert, Flash. Perversion is what defines you and animates you. It has led you to a manifestation of self that is ugly and in a real sense vile. I base this on what you say, where your values lie, and how you present yourself.

And you are the most boring nazi on the whole of the internet, so nobody's perfect.

[Age]

The following is a quote from Christopher Dawson's The Historic Reality of Christian Culture: A Way to the Renewal of Human Life (Routledge, 1960) I read this book some years back and it has very much influenced my outlook. As it happens -- and this note goes out to all who participated in the Christianity thread that endured for so long -- my own position has become full-circle. I accept the necessity of a renovation of the relationship to what is presented, metaphysically,

What do you actually mean by, 'presented, metaphysically', exactly?

See, like other words what 'you mean' by some words is very different to what 'others mean', and even to the extend that what 'you mean' can be the exact opposite to what 'another means'. Therefore, 'your clarification' would be and will be very much appreciated.

through Christianity and *the Christian picture*.

But, 'the relationship to what is presented', in regards to just about absolutely everything presented, is individually different for every individual.

So, any so-called 'renovation of the relationship to what is presented' is blurring things even more here.

1. What does 'metaphysically' mean to you here, exactly?

2. What is the 'relationship to you', in relationship to what is presented here, exactly?

3. What is the 'old model' that you believe 'a renovation' of is necessary, exactly?

For some that amounts to a wishy-washy way of putting it and I acknowledge that critique.

And, for others that amounts to you alone putting or presenting a so-called 'wishy-washy' way.

All I can say is that each person, inside of their mind,

But, absolutely no person has their own mind, nor a mind.

and with their imagining faculty, will visualize what I so often refer to as a "metaphysical reality"

Which 'means what', exactly, to you?

according to their interpretive means and equipment.

Do you visualize 'the same'? Or, is it only others who do this?

Even the absolute atheist does this, in my view.

But do you, "yourself", do this, or it is only 'others' who do this?

Also, how many 'levels' of being a so-called "atheist" are there, exactly?

In fact what does the "atheist" word even 'mean' to you, exactly?

I take the word "athiest" to 'mean' something like it is a human being who does not believe God exists and/or believes that God does not exist. So, to me anyway, I am wondering what is the difference between an "atheist" and a so-called "absolute atheist", to you?

Can an "atheist" partly believe God does not exists, or, only partly not believe God exists? Or, do you have different 'meanings' here?

Personally, I am now far more certain and far more committed to the notion and the undertaking of *restoration* and *revivification* of that relationship to what I (somewhat abstractly of course) refer to as *metaphysical reality*.

Well considering that you do not have a full nor crystal clear picture of what 'reality', itself, is, exactly, nor even of 'Reality', Itself, then I would hope that you are committed to changing, or so-called 'restoring' your own personal view and perspective here of 'Reality', Itself.

But, then I would have hoped that you were always OPEN to always changing your view, always, anyway. After all that is the only True and Real way that you are going to get at least 'a glimpse' of 'Reality', Itself.

I am certain -- more certain in any case -- that it is the inner relationship that determines if there is relationship at all.

All is One, and One is all. So, there is no actual 'inner' nor 'outer' anyway. There is, and is always, 'a relationship'. I am not sure how nor why 'you' would think that there is no relationship, let alone how nor why you would even be considering if there is 'a relationship at all'.

What is 'it' that 'you' feel or think that 'you' are 'disconnected from', exactly?

What this means, in the most essential sense, is that the individual has, or does not have, that relationship. Everything begins from that point. Or put another way, it comes to an end when the relationship is broken or inhibited.

But, there is only 'a perception' of a 'broken relationship'. There is no actual 'broken relationship'. There, however, exists a 'broken relationship' in thought or imagination only. But, this 'perceived broken relationship' exists because this is what the brain does and how the brain works, in order to comprehend, understand, and make sense of the Universe, or 'world', in which it has found itself within.

There is only One Thing, only, but which is, perceptually only, 'broken' up, or broken down, into smaller and different, so-called 'individual', things, only, and thus why there is a perception of a 'broken relationship', alone.

If we recognize, and I do, that our culture is sick, we must also understand that we manifest this sickness in one way or another, in one degree or another.

The 'culture' is only 'sick', or 'ill', because of the Wrong adult human beings alone do.

Adult human beings, contrary to what they believe true, are all actually 'mentally sick', or 'mentally ill', in one form or way or another. Obviously, no one knows all things absolutely Accurately and Correctly, therefore, mentally, no one is perfect. And, if no one is perfect, mentally, then they are 'mentally sick or ill' in one way or another.

Obviously, just all human beings, including all of you here, now, were born perfectly, mentally and physically. And, all human bodies will always remain perfect, as they are, physically. However, although all are born perfectly, mentally, human beings do not necessarily 'grow up' nor 'mature' mentally perfect. For if they did, then they would get absolutely every thing Right, 'know' the actual irrefutable Truth of things, and/or 'know' how to get all of the True and Right answers.

Can all of you adult human beings profess to being able to do this?

If no, then you are not mentally perfect, and thus mentally imperfect, mentally ill, or mentally sick in one form or another.

Obviously then, I am an advocate for defining "A way to the renewal of Christian culture" which, necessarily, involves an inner renewal.

But, why only a very tiny snippet of things. Why only of a so-called 'renewal' of "christian culture"? Why not all of the other Wrong and distorted cultures, as well?

So what I propose -- it remains to be seen if the topic will gain any traction -- is an examination, from the perspective of Christopher Dawson and other apologists of his sort, of just what happens when the conceptual pathway to that *supernatural* world of metaphysical reality is broken and shattered, as is occurring strongly and noticeably in our culture(s) and then, if this is established, to ask the question and examine what such *renewal* would involve -- and if it is even possible.

In other words, you want others to 'renew' their views of things here and 'change them' to 'the views' that you 'now' have, and maintain, right?

Also, if by the 'metaphysical reality' words you mean something like 'supernatural' or 'an impossibility to exist outside of the natural', then okay. But, this needs to be understood, fully, before what you want to do here could ever be accomplished and achieved, successfully.

Now, could it be the fact that you have misinterpretations of so-called "christianity" and of so-called "christianity culture", which is really what is what is being broken and shattered here, exactly, and/or needs to be changed, or renewed, here?

Could it be in any way a possibility that it is you, or your views, here ""alexis jacobi" that needs changing? Or, is it that your views are what do not need changing, themselves, here?

Here is a selection from the above-mentioned book for your examination:

The average man's 'objection to Christian civilization is no an objection to medieval culture, which incorporated every act of social life in a sacred order of sacramental symbols and liturgical observances — such a culture is too remote from our experience to stir our emotions one way or the other: it is the dread of moral rigorism, of alcoholic prohibition or the censorship of books and films or of the fundamentalist banning of the teaching of biological evolution.

But what the advocates of a Christian civilization wish is not this narrowing of the cultural horizons, but just the reverse:the recovery of that spiritual dimension of social life the lack of which has cramped and darkened the culture of the modern world. We have acquired new resources of power and of which the old Christian civilization had hardly dreamed. Yet at the same time, we have lost that spiritual vision man formerly possessed-the sense of an eternal world on which the transitory temporal world of human affairs was dependent. This vision is not only a Christian insight: for it is intrinsic to the great civilizations of the ancient East and to the pagan world as well, so that it is not Christian civilization alone·that is at stake.

Here I think John Baillie, in his little book on What is Christian Civilization, makes a useful and necessary distinction when he objects to the use of the word "pagan” to describe the dominant spirit of a secularist society:

“The word pagan [he says] is often unthinkingly used as if it meant a man who was devoid of all religious sentiment and worshipped no gods. But all real pagans are full of religious sentiment and their fundamental error rather lies in worshipping too many gods. The alternative today is not between being Christian or being pagan, but between being Christian and being nothing in particular, not between belonging to the Church and belonging to some social spiritual community that claims an equally wholehearted allegiance, but between belonging to the Church and belonging nowhere, giving no wholehearted allegiance to anything. Such is the tragedy that has overtaken so much of our common life that it belongs nowhere, has no spiritual home, no ultimate standards of reference and little definite conception of the direction in which it desires to move.”

I think this is surely true as a diagnosis of our present civilization. But society cannot remain stationary in this kind of spiritual no man's land. It will inevitably become a prey to the unclean spirits that seek to make their dwelling in the empty human soul. For a secular civilization that has no end beyond its own satisfaction is a monstrosity -- a cancerous growth which will ultimately destroy itself. The only power that can liberate man from this kingdom of darkness is the Christian faith.

For in the modern Western world there are no alternative solutions, no choice of possible other religions. It is a choice between Christianity or nothing. And Christianity is still a live option. The scattered elements of Christian tradition and Christian culture still exist in the modern world, though they may be temporarily forgotten or neglected. Thus the revival of Chris-tian civilization does not involve the creation of a totally new civilization, but rather the cultural reawakening or reactivation of the Christian minority.

Our civilization has become secularized largely because the Christian element has adopted a passive attitude and allowed the leadership of culture to pass to the non-Christian minority. And this cultural passivity has not been due to any profound existentialist concern with the human predicament and divine judgment, but on the contrary to a tendency toward social conformity and too ready an acceptance of the values of a secularized society. It is the intellectual and social inertia of Christians that is the real obstacle to a restoration of Christian culture. For if it is true that more than half the population of this country are church members, Christians can hardly say that they are powerless to influence society. It is the will, not the power, that is lacking.

I suggest that instead of 'renewing' anything here one just uses 'science' to 'look at' things, including 'all theological texts', instead of just the "christian texts", to 'see' what the actual Truth is, exactly, which, by the way, was written in 'all theological texts'.

One just needs to first learn how to 'look at' and 'see' things, for how they exactly are, before they can 'see' the actually True intentions, and True meanings, behind all of 'older theological written texts'.

The people of the days when this is being written thought or believed that their own personal interpretations were the true and right ones, and that it was not this that needed changing, but the actual 'older texts' that needed changing.

The actual Truth is in 'those writings' one just needs to be Truly OPEN and Honest to 'see' this Fact.

'Older writings/teachings' do not need changing, nor renewing. It is just people's False and Wrong interpretations that are what actually needs changing, and renewing.

Also, the misinterpretation that there is only a choice between "christianity" or nothing, "theology" or nothing, "theism" or "atheism", or even "theism" or "science" alone is completely and utterly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

The Truth of things is found, and 'seen' within 'all things', which is done by 'looking at' 'all things'. The Truth is not within 'some things', like "christianity" for example, but not within 'other things'. There can be Falsehoods, and Truth, within 'all things', being able to separate the two is where and when the actual irrefutable Truth is found, and known.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are a pervert, Flash. Perversion is what defines you and animates you. It has led you to a manifestation of self that is ugly and in a real sense vile. I base this on what you say, where your values lie, and how you present yourself.

And you are the most boring nazi on the whole of the internet, so nobody's perfect.

But I’m getting better!

[Gary Childress]

Well according to Christianity one is on a "hellish" path if s/he doesn't profess Christ his savior. I bring that up since the title of the thread contains the word "Christian" in it.

I’d amend that somewhat. Christianity defines the earth as a realm with many pitfalls. “The World” when referenced negatively refers to people in it — bad influences say — but the world is understood to be good. Though definitely contaminated.

I think you focus on a more Calvinistic, possibly Protestant, apologetic point? Dawson recognizes that a culture can be ethically Christian and an individual can be so through cultural osmosis. I accept that view.

But there are also further points of commitment.

I'd like to think so, but the writers of the New Testament seem to have Jesus saying differently and isn't it the case that protestants and Catholics all read the same Bible? Or do they have different holy books than each other?

https://ourdailybread.org/article/jesus ... 20to%20God.

[Iwannaplato]

But if there are calls for restoration and the sickness now is not compared to previous sicknesses, it implies the past was better.

Not necessarily so. Dawson seems to say the sickness is ever-present. But he is not backwards-oriented though as an historian he cannot be unaware of other periods.

No, I’ve gotten no impression that he is advocating for a return to some former age.

Restoration
a return of something to a former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition.

[Iwannaplato]

If you don't think things are sicker now, you could just say that.

My reference point, my topic really, is my own country. And I definitely have noticed strong and evident signs of degeneration.

degeneration
/dɪˌdʒɛnəˈreɪʃn/
noun
the state or process of being or becoming degenerate; decline or deterioration.

For example, from health to less health. There was a state that was better before degeneration. That's built into the word.

[Iwannaplato]

Shit or get off the pot.

Yes, that's another way I could have phrased a part of my response to the OP.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, you used the quote. How do you take it? It doesn't matter what the original author meant particularly. You decided that this was important in some way. It represented some message you wanted to convey. It does seem to matter to the message if it is literal or metaphorical. Which would be better for what you are trying to get across and why?

Ah, you’ve put it all back on me.

Sure, I'm trying to get some clear messages from you. Take it as interest if that helps, if that wasn't obvious.

I don’t know what “a spirit” is and I do not know exactly what a “demonic spirit” is because I do not know how to relate to or process a world divided into an angelic and demonic polarity. I am, after all, a modern — like you I might add.

I'm not a modern.

The metaphorical — isn’t that also very often the real and the actual?

You can certainly convey the real and actual via metaphors. Again, it was me trying to understand.

[Alexis Jacobi]

For example, from health to less health. There was a state that was better before degeneration. That's built into the word.

If the subject is the person, a person, and the issue is ill-health — psychic or spiritual — words like recovery, regeneration, renewal obviously apply.

Dawson’s view — historian of Christian Europe — is I suppose one recognizing periods of greater or lesser health, but as a realist (this is my impression) he realizes there has never been a perfect state or an ideal Christian state. If he says and believes that realizing Christianity will lead to renewal of human life (his words and a tall order) it is a proposition that will require a serious approach.

Apparently, as Dawson’s mediator to you I am asked to explain and defend knotty points. You feel I fall short. You are entitled and I have no reason not to validate your sentiment. That is the respectful thing, right?

Sure, I'm trying to get some clear messages from you. Take it as interest if that helps, if that wasn't obvious.

You are grilling me to be more accurate. It is SOP in the forum context. Unending questions that must be answered satisfactorily at the risk of disappointing the one demanding these ‘clear answers’. Chill out. I started the thread for purposes of revisitation of the entire topic — for those who might have an interest in the subject.

I envision the possibilities in these conversations differently. I mean about the creative way they can or might proceed. It should be obvious to you that I am (by choice, by interest, by destiny) deeply involved in the larger sort of questions that Dawson, Chesterton, and Eliot seem to ask — their propositions put pressure on one — yet I struggle over all of it. How could this be any different? These are profound problems bound up with our society and our civilization.

Stop putting so much pressure on me specifically.

I'm not a modern.

Huh? How can you possibly say such a thing? I don’t see how anyone who is a product of our time is not a modern. How are you taking the term and what do you mean?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Shit or get off the pot.

Yes, that's another way I could have phrased a part of my response to the OP.

OK and what would “shitting” mean then in this context?

I used it to poke fun at someone — myself — turning and turning over difficult questions. It is not just a little stunning to me to realize that 10-11 years have passed. But then how long should it take to reconstruct oneself? Or ‘renew’ in Dawson’s sense?

What about you?

Talk about your own damned conclusive means by which you have solved existential problems of magnitude. Do you have a family? How do you participate spiritually with the people in your sphere?

[Harbal]

You keep saying you are solely here for your own purposes, Alexis, but that would seem to suggest that your purpose is to put yourself under constant attack, and I can't help thinking that a very strange purpose.

[Wizard22]

Personally, I am now far more certain and far more committed to the notion and the undertaking of *restoration* and *revivification* of that relationship to what I (somewhat abstractly of course) refer to as *metaphysical reality*. I am certain -- more certain in any case -- that it is the inner relationship that determines if there is relationship at all. What this means, in the most essential sense, is that the individual has, or does not have, that relationship. Everything begins from that point. Or put another way, it comes to an end when the relationship is broken or inhibited.

If we recognize, and I do, that our culture is sick, we must also understand that we manifest this sickness in one way or another, in one degree or another. Obviously then, I am an advocate for defining "A way to the renewal of Christian culture" which, necessarily, involves an inner renewal.

Jordan Peterson
This Is One of the Biggest Medical Malpractice Scandals in History | Michael Shellenberger | EP 435
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7koRuL02sY)

I think you're getting more to the gist of it, Alexis, the Metaphysical underlining of these Liberal-Leftist-Marxist anti-cultural forces, represented most by the Democratic-Left in the US. It's about the fundamental reality of existence. They claim that Gender is "fluid", and that children/teenagers can "choose" their Gender. The result is Barbaric. The result is Anti-Christian. Western Civilization was supposed to be 'beyond' the immorality of child genital mutilation, blood cults, human sacrifice, and Eunuchs/sterilization of young boys.

But here we are, a full Regression of all the "Progress" the Leftist Progressives were promising, not even a decade ago...2010s, 2000s, 1990s, 1980s.

It's like they have no Memory! Or, the memory of a goldfish! And we see it on this forum, namely in the willful, enthusiastic Ignorance of Hairball, Dpants, Scalper, and the like...the other several or dozen forum members who follow their lead (ideologically). That's why I look toward Iwan as moderator...as a middle-ground. Where does HE stand on these, Metaphysical Realities and core presumptions of reality, I wonder...

Our civilization has become secularized largely because the Christian element has adopted a passive attitude and allowed the leadership of culture to pass to the non-Christian minority. And this cultural passivity has not been due to any profound existentialist concern with the human predicament and divine judgment, but on the contrary to a tendency toward social conformity and too ready an acceptance of the values of a secularized society. It is the intellectual and social inertia of Christians that is the real obstacle to a restoration of Christian culture. For if it is true that more than half the population of this country are church members, Christians can hardly say that they are powerless to influence society. It is the will, not the power, that is lacking.

I used to rail against Christianity back in my teens, 20s, early 30s. Now I know better. Now I'm much wiser.

Although the "Dark Ages" of Medieval, Catholic-dominated Europe, were in many ways bad and "worse" than today...their Spirituality was far, far better and superior. The Family was close. The European Family and Pagan, were protected by their local Church, Bishop, and Parish. And we see why, today, exactly, such spiritual Protection was/is necessary.

Western Civilization is begin to understand, Again, why God is necessary, to protect against these Satanic and Evil forces.


Hairball has the gall to call our "side" "Sinister", while he plays innocent and dumb, a fool, his forté, when confronted with Tranny Dragtime Story Hour: "It ain't gonna lick itself!"

Ignorance is Evil indeed...

[Wizard22]

You keep saying you are solely here for your own purposes, Alexis, but that would seem to suggest that your purpose is to put yourself under constant attack, and I can't help thinking that a very strange purpose.

On the contrary, Alexis would be wise to put you on the attack.

You certainly have a lot to Defend of yourself... daring to call Alexis "sinister" while you defend child dragtime story hour...

[Wizard22]

And you are the most boring nazi on the whole of the internet, so nobody's perfect.

Shutup, Hamas supporter.

[Wizard22]

You see, Alexis, this is perfect example of what I mentioned weeks ago... these types need to be put on the defensive.

We should not be playing Defense against them. They should be playing Defense against us.

That's the problem with Western Civilization and this 'Leftist' sickness.