Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[phyllo]

What a snarky statement.

Oh, sorry. It wasn't intended to be.

You use the word "modern" often but I don't think you ever clarified what you meant by it. (Or maybe I missed the posts where you did.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

it was how it seemed to classify me.

You tell me how I should classify you. I consider that your responsibility. If I misread or misinterpret, provide the correction.

I have made some broad stroke descriptions, but you can simply tell me about whatever it is without guessing at my reactions or including me in a group.

And if I tell you to relax and lighten up how will that be received?

I've been reacting to Christianity and Catholicism in post after post.

At the risk of offending you (I hope you will choose not to be offended) my impression so far is that you have a shallow understanding of Catholicism. I cannot blame you though. You offer views and interpretations that are extremely common — the typical complaints. My opinion is that you need — meaning we all need — to see beyond those superficialities.

And as I write here (and live and breathe) that is what I am trying to do — and exclusively for myself. You must understand this.

So yes, you’ve reacted typically in post after post — and I see that you do not grasp the essence of it (Catholicism) in the most important senses. And that is absolutely fine! I am not trying to convince you. Though I can offer some interesting resources.

I described myself as pagan animist.

LOL!

It is a meaningless description until it is fleshed out. At least to me. I did look up a few standard definitions. Does your cellphone have a distinct spirit in it? Your car? (These are feeble attempts at humor).

In all seriousness please tell me more.

In the broad sense no, but again moderns and secular non-theists in the West have very similar ideas about what is love and what is guilt to many Christians. Even down to the expression of emotions.

We’d have to flesh this out but my assertion is that no, they most certainly do not. And the fall away from the spiritual personalism that gave life to love (in the sense I used the word) results in a broad debasement. (But don’t think I hold myself as a paragon please).

But you don't need to know this to write about your thoughts or what Dawson or any of the others you mention are saying. You could say moderns, instead of we moderns. And you don't need to tell me that I will have trouble believing X. You can just tell me about X and let me have whatever reactions I have. I can bring them up if necessary.

Just pass over it. Don’t get hung up on it.

I do say •we moderns•. Because I am making reference to our cultural situation, and our civilizational situation. You are incidental.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What a snarky statement.

Oh, sorry. It wasn't intended to be.

You use the word "modern" often but I don't think you ever clarified what you meant by it. (Or maybe I missed the posts where you did.)

A few years back I introduced myself to Pascendi. It is a difficult read. But the exact definition of •modern• as used by Pius X, which is very specific, I absorbed on some level, but only this AM did I remember those discussion videos and listened again, and was reminded.

I should mention that my present review of Catholic fundamentals has come to the fore because of my encounters with so many atheist types who write on this form. And I should also mention IC who had been a powerful negative influence that severely affected my appreciation of Christianity. I had to confront these people on an inner level to then (attempt to) transcend their limitations and •errors•. I’m not yet through it. It is a very difficult problem to resolve.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A little bit of 'Eastern' wisdom on why Nihilism takes grip on Anglo-Protestant Western Civilization and "MUH Democracy!!!"

Interesting video. Mishima is an intense character and his resoluteness is often cited by the dissident right (like at Counter-Currents).

There was one other I liked. This.

Decay and dissolution are extremely real occurrences and the causal chain must be understood.

[attofishpi]

I should mention that my present review of Catholic fundamentals has come to the fore because of my encounters with so many atheist types who write on this form. And I should also mention IC who had been a powerful negative influence that severely affected my appreciation of Christianity. I had to confront these people on an inner level to then (attempt to) transcend their limitations and •errors•. I’m not yet through it. It is a very difficult problem to resolve.

What are these "Catholic fundamentals" - could you provide a list?

Christianity is extremely simple - belief in the life death resurrection of Christ.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What are these "Catholic fundamentals" - could you provide a list?

Here

[attofishpi]

What are these "Catholic fundamentals" - could you provide a list?

Here

I expected that.

As a Catholic - being born into it, neither via school nor my occasional visits to Mass were there any fundamentals of Catholic faith 'preached'. It just was about what being a Christian entails.

Why are you finding Christianity more complex than the simple belief in the life of Christ rendering one a Christian?

[Iwannaplato]

You tell me how I should classify you. I consider that your responsibility. If I misread or misinterpret, provide the correction.

Again, you don't need to classify me. You can describe where you stand which was what you said you were doing. Really, it would have been so easy for you to say: oh, ok, I won't make any more assumptions about you. You'll see below what this can lead to.

The opinions you have about Christianity and Catholicism are more or less precisely those of many or most people.

Nah, not really. But here's the thing. You don't need to tell me this or

I understand all of them because, naturally, I’ve thought the same thoughts. — until I researched the matter in more depth. And then, in my case, everything changed.

or this. I get that you are saying this is not intended as condescending, but it assumes a lot about me, and it's not necessary. You say...

That is my own primary objective: to get clear about where I stand.

That doesn't require guessing that you've had all of my thoughts and then went on and did more research. Mull over how that sounds and then couple it with what you say your goal is. Really, it can be left out.

And if I tell you to relax and lighten up how will that be received?

Well, we'll find out if you say it.

I've been reacting to Christianity and Catholicism in post after post.

At the risk of offending you (I hope you will choose not to be offended) my impression so far is that you have a shallow understanding of Catholicism.

If that is the case why did you say....

I have very little idea as to how you view Christianity or anything else until you write it out here.

I'm actually reading what you write.
You tell me you have very little idea how I view Christianity.
I point out that I have been posting about this repeatedly.
And you response that my view of Christianity is shallow.
In addition to direct reactions to specifics in Christianity I also shared a meta-view of why my posts are in the format and with the slant they have, given the topic of using Christianity to restore Western Civ and be central in it.
So, you don't know AND it is shallow. Do you notice these contradictions. Do they matter.
Yet instead of engaging with it in any way - which might be a way to find out if it is shallow or not, you act as if I haven't said anything. Then when this is pointed out, that it's shallow.

Again, I actually read what you write. If you can't manage to get anything new out of our interaction, perhaps you'll at least get some idea how you communicate.

I cannot blame you though. You offer views and interpretations that are extremely common — the typical complaints. My opinion is that you need — meaning we all need — to see beyond those superficialities.

Yes, so you've said. At the same very abstract level, without presenting in any way how. If you don't intereaction with something - in this case my views critical of Christianity - then you don't understand it. That might be a takeaway less - actually interaction with things rather than classifying at a distance. Might help with your modern distance from Christianity also.

And as I write here (and live and breathe) that is what I am trying to do — and exclusively for myself. You must understand this.

Yes, it seems you classify yourself as modern and so when you encounter someone who has some thoughts you've had, you assume they are where you were in the past, before you did your deeper research. You know them and since you were superficial, they are. Despite the fact that none of this actually help you with the project you said you have - workiing your way of this yourself and becoming clear on your position, you continuously make flat statement about me and presumably other interlocutors that aren't grounded, nor are they relevant to you coming to where you want to be. Mind reading and projection won't help you with that. And note, not because I know who you are or what you are, but because you're human. Those presumptions aren't steps towards your extricating yourself from being a modern and actually immersing yourself in Christian metaphysics.

So yes, you’ve reacted typically in post after post — and I see that you do not grasp the essence of it (Catholicism) in the most important senses. And that is absolutely fine! I am not trying to convince you. Though I can offer some interesting resources.

I am starting to see what you mean, that you are modern. Up in your head. Unable to see others other than cognitively. Making a lot of assumptions. I can see why Christian metaphysics eludes you.

I described myself as pagan animist.

LOL!

It is a meaningless description until it is fleshed out.

Really? How odd. I would think it might lead to a dash of caution about referring to me as modern. It might also lead to caution about assuming that you have had all my thoughts already. I actually wondered when I read your recent posts if you thought I was another poster.
Note: you've asserted that you would need more information to undertand my position and beliefs.
While at the same time asserting you've had all my thoughts.

Again, I do actually read what you write.

At least to me. I did look up a few standard definitions. Does your cellphone have a distinct spirit in it? Your car? (These are feeble attempts at humor).

In all seriousness please tell me more.

IN a thread on the topic of Christian Civilization? In a thread where your goal is to get yourself away from being a modern, stuck in his head, not able to really take seriously the metaphysics that he thinks we all should?

You're not making any sense. And it is as if you need to make assumptions about me unless I can intercede in advance, when in fact you don't. You could simply explain and explore exactly what you brought up in the title and OP.

In the broad sense no, but again moderns and secular non-theists in the West have very similar ideas about what is love and what is guilt to many Christians. Even down to the expression of emotions.

We’d have to flesh this out but my assertion is that no, they most certainly do not. And the fall away from the spiritual personalism that gave life to love (in the sense I used the word) results in a broad debasement. (But don’t think I hold myself as a paragon please).

Then how would you know? My reaction is that you yourself don't really get Christian metaphysics, including about love. And yet your consider yourself in a position to judge others, based on that view. That doesn't make very much sense. I think you actually have less understanding of Christianity than I do for a couple of reasons. 1) I was Christian as a child, and quite a serious little believer and 2) because your head is modern - in the problematic sense you mean by that term. You don't know what it is to be immersed in beliefs outside the secular world. You may have had some experiences, here and there, but you're up in your head. You're a cognitive Christian who doesn't really believe in the tenets of something you think are critical for us all to believe. This is me finally starting to believe how you describe yourself.

As far as guilt, including Christians and moderns have trouble distinguishing between guilt and regret. So, they think guilt is necessary to be a good person. Yes, they may point to some of the overt parts of Christianity that are up front about guilt, but they've taken on ideas about guilt from the Abrahamic religions, despite having lopped off the deity head of the religion. And both groups will happily join together over what are, to them, the negative emotions - each making occasional exceptions for their own versions righteous wrath. But this is all a rather large tangent from what this thread is supposedly about.

But you don't need to know this to write about your thoughts or what Dawson or any of the others you mention are saying. You could say moderns, instead of we moderns. And you don't need to tell me that I will have trouble believing X. You can just tell me about X and let me have whatever reactions I have. I can bring them up if necessary.

Just pass over it. Don’t get hung up on it.

Just pass over my reaction. Don't get hung up on it.

I do say •we moderns•. Because I am making reference to our cultural situation, and our civilization's situation. You are incidental.

You said more than this and more specifically assuming things about me. The first reference 'we moderns' you'll not I reacted 'If this wasn't meant to include me, peachy'. IOW it was ambiguous, so I just made a note about it. But from there you were clearly speaking about me as an individual.

And note at no time in any of this have you explained why you need to classify me and make assumptions about me to convey your position on the topic. I suggest it's not necessary. And nowhere do you react to this suggestion. The response in general is: don't get hung up on this, you need to do things to get me to stop writing my assumptions about you, my assumptions about you are correct.

Which, among other things, manages to be very California (in the sense you have used it and the subculture you mentioned) and fairly unChristian.
And all so that you can continue doing something you can't manage to explain why it is necessary in this thread.

From a philosophy forum perspective, you don't seem interested in interacting with ideas or people. Labeling them and their ideas and suggesting people read stuff seems to be the main interpersonal interaction for you.

I don't really need facile reads or a reading list, so I'll leave it here.

I know you won't get hung up on any of this or let it kill your buzz or bum you out, man, so just keep on truckin'.

And don't worry, none of what you do in relation to other people could possibly be connected to why you're a modern, up in your head about Christianity. I mean, it's not like on some very profound level it's an interpersonal religion at every level.....oh wait......

[attofishpi]

1) I was Christian as a child, and quite a serious little believer..

So Y don't you believe in Christ NE more?

And don't worry, none of what you do in relation to other people could possibly be connected to why you're a modern, up in your head about Christianity. I mean, it's not like on some very profound level it's an interpersonal religion at every level.....oh wait......

Christianity is THE most pro_found religion upon the planet.

[Iwannaplato]

So Y don't you believe in Christ NE more?

I'm not a Christian anymore. My views on Christ are complicated and likely unlike Christian views.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why are you finding Christianity more complex than the simple belief in the life of Christ rendering one a Christian?

I suspect a lack of magnesium in my diet.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It got too weird for me Iwannaplato. I have no idea how to respond to all of that last post.

[phyllo]

It got too weird for me Iwannaplato. I have no idea how to respond to all of that last post.

So drop it and talk about the subject of the thread.

[Iwannaplato]

It got too weird for me Iwannaplato. I have no idea how to respond to all of that last post.

So drop it and talk about the subject of the thread.

Perfect.

[Alexis Jacobi]

::: said in the screechy voice of the Wicky Witch of the West :::

“Patience, my pretties, patience!”

Fifth day out but on the final tortuous climb back to my humble castle.

Then: Complete reading lists; highlighted texts; talks; videos: illustrated photographs; poems; and … wait for it: channeling of special messages from an enchanted brook! (Ecumenical spirits ask for inclusion!)

You’ll not want to miss any of it!

Meantime, you might be interested in Le Fevbre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics.