Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Harbal]

Ok, Ok its a Glockenspiel … but the idea still holds.

And it's about as desirable as all your other ideas.

[seeds]

Here is one current example of what is being discussed at a cultural level.

In his attempt to define (and justify) "Christian Nationalism," Tucker Carlson's guest (Pastor Doug Wilson) stated the following...

"...the Christian heritage has, unlike anything else in human history, has a balance of form and freedom, structure and liberty together. That, I believe, is the unique contribution of Christian theology. We worship God who is one God (Christians are monotheists) who is Triune; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit..."

I'm sorry folks, but no matter how Christian apologists might twist themselves into a pretzel to try and make the concept work, they will never be able to convince a critical thinker that the belief in a Godhead that consists of a "Trinity" (3 Beings) can be called "Monotheism."

Anyway, after the pastor defined and declared the benefits of "Christian Nationalism," Tucker,...

(and I'm pinching my nose at the realization that I am quoting Tucker Carlson)

...after agreeing with everything the pastor said, asked the following...

"...Let me pose that maybe two problems that people might have hearing the phrase "Christian Nationalism"; the first and most obvious is what if I'm not Christian? - how do I fit in with that?..."

...To which the pastor replied...

"...you would fit in better than you're fitting in now....I trust the Christians to take better care of a secularist's liberty than I trust a secularist to take care of mine..."

To which Tucker responded with...

"...hee..hee..hee..hee,...nicely put...tee..hee..hee..."

However, notice how the pastor's misleading answer was only in reference to "secularists," and not to the proponents and believers of other religions.

According to the website "vocabulary.com"...

What is secularism in simple terms?
Secularism is a way of life and thinking that rejects religion. So if you're into secularism, you're not into God, going to church, praying, or anything holy. Some people dig religion. Other people don't. And it's those people that live a life of secularism, far removed from anything that has to do with God or church.

The obvious point, AJ, is that in support of your thread argument,...

(and of your promotion of some ambiguous vision of some form of Christian, or white, or hereditary, or whatever, nationalism)

...you have recommended a video that simply (and deceptively) perpetuates the perennial and unsolvable problem of trying to get people to give up their own flawed belief system,...

(say, Islam, for example, which is truly "Monotheistic" in structure)

...for what? - a belief in the Catholic Trinity?

Really, AJ?

Like Harry, I'm afraid I'm going to have to haul out one of my oft-used visual aids which sums-up my take on where the concept of the Trinity is positioned relative to Islam...



Captions starting from the bottom:

"If it's all the same to you, I think I'll just go on believing in "Nog" the great toad god, whose mighty croak brings forth the summer rains."

"Such insolence! Pharoah and Ra will crush your toad god under the wheels of their chariots!"

"Silence! I am Zeus. And with one bolt of lightning I will have Pharoah, Ra, and toad legs for breakfast!"

"Calm down now. I am Jesus. I will change water into wine to serve with those toad legs. What goes with toad legs, red or white?"

"Oh, I don't know. I'm thinking more of a rosé."

"Infidels! Allah will have your wine, your toad legs, and all of your heads!"

God: "Enough already!"

Like a senile old man, I know I keep repeating this, but the point is that the world needs a new "Material/Spiritual Paradigm."

And as I have also said before, the irony is that the new paradigm doesn't even need to be true, no, it just needs to "make more sense" than the old spiritual paradigm which is a conglomeration of divergent belief systems that, for the most part, are based on mythological nonsense.

Now, with all that being said, the question I have for you, Aj, is do you truly believe that a 2,000 year old belief system (Christianity),...

(a system that was founded upon the need for a savior to rescue us from a fallen [hell/eternal torture-bound] state of being which was caused by the silly escapades of two mythological knuckleheads dealing with a talking snake in a mythological garden)

...is in any way, shape, or form, going to fit in with the level of consciousness that many humans have ascended to in our modern age of astrophysics, quantum physics, and quantum cosmology?
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm sorry folks, but no matter how Christian apologists might twist themselves into a pretzel to try and make the concept work, they will never be able to convince a critical thinker that the belief in a Godhead that consists of a "Trinity" (3 Beings) can be called "Monotheism."

I don’t know why a singular god-concept is divided into 3 beings that are the same, but must be conceived as triune (apparently in their operation). I have read material that pointed out that the triune concept is IndoEuropean. Those articles are accessible on-line.

I tend to think of the triune concept as three functions, or 3 realms of activity. One outside of manifestation. One entering into it directly. And the notion of a Sacred Spirit that moves through time and space (or as a molding force in history) is strange I guess. But the concept is not incoherent. I did always find it unusual that it was presented not as something eternal and pre-existent, but something that the god-incarnation would “send”.

Whereas in Isaiah there is the “thought and ways” that once set out does not return until the work is completed.

As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Certain ideas of this level have tremendous resonance and depth when they are entertained without prejudice.

I am uncertain what you gain by establishing that Christianity is really a religion of three gods.

More difficult, for the post-Catholic certainly, is the semi-divinization of Mary.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...is in any way, shape, or form, going to fit in with the level of consciousness that many humans have ascended to in our modern age of astrophysics, quantum physics, and quantum cosmology?

I am not immune to the difficulty of the problem you face and we all face (when thinking symbol-systems through).

However I don’t have great faith in the systems that have been devised (explanation systems, cosmic mapping) that you bring up. They do not propose anything particularly and offer no guidance or wisdom.

You could just as well ask what the effect of the entheogen experience has or is having on people’s conception of reality and our being here.

ascended to

I do not see ascent. But I admit that I am more drawn to Newman’s Grammar of Assent which, if I am right, has only to do with the •spiritual man•.

An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (commonly abbreviated to the last three words) is John Henry Newman's seminal book on the philosophy of faith. Completed in 1870, the book took Newman 20 years to write, he confided to friends.

Newman's aim was to show that the scientific standards for evidence and assent are too narrow and inapplicable in concrete life. He argued that logic and its conclusions are not transferable to real life decision making as such. As a result, it is inappropriate to judge the validity of assent in concrete faith by conventional logical standards because paper logic is unequal to the task. "Logic is loose at both ends," he said, meaning that the process of logic initially depends on restrictive assumptions and is thus unable to fit its conclusions neatly into real world situations.

[phyllo]

The trinity represents the three manifestations of God.

The Father is God separate and beyond the world.

The Son is God within others.

The Holy Spirit is God within yourself.

[Gary Childress]

The trinity represents the three manifestations of God.

The Father is God separate and beyond the world.

The Son is God within others.

The Holy Spirit is God within yourself.

That's also how I understand the Trinity from how a Pastor at the church I attended off and on for a while explained it to me--if I understood him correctly. Seems like a nice idea.

[seeds]

I'm sorry folks, but no matter how Christian apologists might twist themselves into a pretzel to try and make the concept work, they will never be able to convince a critical thinker that the belief in a Godhead that consists of a "Trinity" (3 Beings) can be called "Monotheism."

I don’t know why a singular god-concept is divided into 3 beings that are the same, but must be conceived as triune (apparently in their operation). I have read material that pointed out that the triune concept is IndoEuropean....

The trinity represents the three manifestations of God.

The Father is God separate and beyond the world.

The Son is God within others.

The Holy Spirit is God within yourself.

I'm sure that everyone already knows this stuff,...

...but the concept of the Trinity is an "ad hoc" addition to the Christian narrative that occurred when a bunch of smelly old men got together in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Christ, and arbitrarily declared that God is a Trinity.

Of which I suggest that Islam, being a part of the Abrahamic line, came along a few hundred years later and guided that misrepresentation of God back to true Mono-theism.

Anyway, if we look at the issue of the Trinity from a purely Biblical perspective, it clearly states the following,...

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

In which case, if we are indeed "created in God's image," then where do you see the presence of a "trinity" within the makeup of the human form or soul?
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

In which case, if we are indeed "created in God's image," then where do you see the presence of a "trinity" within the makeup of the human form or soul?

If I am not mistaken theologians have various ways that they describe the trinity, and I think you would agree with me that theological language is sometimes a language of dealing in rational form with symbols and senses of meaning. But the ultimate point does always seem to hinge on conduct.

When I pointed out to Iwannaplato that I am a modern (in fact we are all moderns here) that means that I have been raised up and indoctrinated in certain ways of seeing things. So we have to realize that the concept of a trinity, and indeed any way or means to speak about God, is not very accessible to us.

I do not precisely know what *to be created in God's image* means. I have read various interpretations. In the end I am unsure what the importance of debating this issue is.

My view is that one (we) have to examine the essences of what is presented to us through theological stories. We can try to look at them as if they are histories but that becomes somewhat problematic because of modern scholarship and criticism.

I realize that what I propose here does not seem adequate enough for many. But I say again that when I encounter people with ideas like Newman, and I realize that the issue -- of conversion and of alignment with an entire structure that is *ours* and of course with metaphysical authority -- is one of giving our assent to something beyond our comprehension, it is at that point that I relax my critical faculties in favor of what I might say is *intuitively understood*. But I have no way to recommend my procedure or tactic here to others.

[Harbal]

In which case, if we are indeed "created in God's image," then where do you see the presence of a "trinity" within the makeup of the human form or soul?

If I am not mistaken theologians have various ways that they describe the trinity, and I think you would agree with me that theological language is sometimes a language of dealing in rational form with symbols and senses of meaning. But the ultimate point does always seem to hinge on conduct.

When I pointed out to Iwannaplato that I am a modern (in fact we are all moderns here) that means that I have been raised up and indoctrinated in certain ways of seeing things. So we have to realize that the concept of a trinity, and indeed any way or means to speak about God, is not very accessible to us.

I do not precisely know what *to be created in God's image* means. I have read various interpretations. In the end I am unsure what the importance of debating this issue is.

My view is that one (we) have to examine the essences of what is presented to us through theological stories. We can try to look at them as if they are histories but that becomes somewhat problematic because of modern scholarship and criticism.

I realize that what I propose here does not seem adequate enough for many. But I say again that when I encounter people with ideas like Newman, and I realize that the issue -- of conversion and of alignment with an entire structure that is *ours* -- is one of giving our assent to something beyond our comprehension, it is at that point that I relax my critical faculties in favor of what I might say is *intuitively understood*.

You can find meaning in anything if you are determined to find it. All the grandeur, ceremony and ritual of the Catholic Church is a massive con trick that's meant to give the impression of substance to what should never have been thought of as more than the superstitions of primitive tribe folk.

[phyllo]

...but the concept of the Trinity is an "ad hoc" addition to the Christian narrative that occurred when a bunch of smelly old men got together in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Christ, and arbitrarily declared that God is a Trinity.

The "smelly old men" made Jesus into a deity, which is not what he was teaching.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You can find meaning in anything if you are determined to find it. All the grandeur, ceremony and ritual of the Catholic Church is a massive con trick that's meant to give the impression of substance to what should never have been thought of as more than the superstitions of primitive tribe folk.

That is the interpretation of the *mass man* I have referred to often. I understand that this is where you stand and that you can see no further. If you were capable of self-education, and interested in it (and open to it) you could learn of the conceptual pathways to a different understanding. Yet you have made it clear that you have no interest in that.

[Harbal]

You can find meaning in anything if you are determined to find it. All the grandeur, ceremony and ritual of the Catholic Church is a massive con trick that's meant to give the impression of substance to what should never have been thought of as more than the superstitions of primitive tribe folk.

That is the interpretation of the *mass man* I have referred to often. I understand that this is where you stand and that you can see no further. If you were capable of self-education, and interested in it (and open to it) you could learn of the conceptual pathways to a different understanding. Yet you have made it clear that you have no interest in that.

Of course I have no interest in it, it means absolutely nothing to me, and there is no reason why it should mean anything. And I hope you are right about my being representative of "mass man".

[Harry Baird]

With his fondness for the Tridentine version, perhaps it is AJ who is the "mass" man. Boom-tish.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The “mass man” that Ortega y Gasset writes about is a phenomenon of our present, and we are all a part of it or subsumed in it.

Ortega’s accomplishment in that book was to identify a new sociological species: mass man. As The Revolt of the Masses explains, the mass man is not just an ordinary man, and he is not associated with any particular class. He is, rather, a product of European historical development, a kind of human being born for the first time in the nineteenth century.

The description Ortega gives is not particularly enjoyable. The mass man lives without any discipline, and¯as Ortega remembers from Goethe—“to live as one pleases is plebian.” The mass man “possesses no quality of excellence.” He demands more and more, as if it were his natural right, without realizing that what he wants was the privilege of a tiny group only a century ago. He does not understand that technological wonders are the product of an intricate cultural process for which he should be grateful. “What before would have been considered one of fortune’s gifts, inspiring humble gratitude toward destiny, was converted into a right, not to be grateful for, but to be insisted on,” The Revolt of the Masses claims.

What Ortega understood is that the nineteenth century created the kind of human being who would become the dominant social force in the twentieth century—and thus that there is no way back to the aristocratic style of politics that dominated history for millennia. Mass man, fortified by an array of rights, is in charge of historical destiny.

[Dubious]

I realize that what I propose here does not seem adequate enough for many. But I say again that when I encounter people with ideas like Newman, and I realize that the issue -- of conversion and of alignment with an entire structure that is *ours* and of course with metaphysical authority -- is one of giving our assent to something beyond our comprehension, it is at that point that I relax my critical faculties in favor of what I might say is *intuitively understood*. But I have no way to recommend my procedure or tactic here to others.

It's precisely when things are intuitively understood that the critical faculties must emerge to examine whether one's intuition actually denotes a false perspective. Individually it may not matter...or matter much; on a societal basis the opposite is true; whatever defects our intuitions may contain become vastly magnified if it coalesces into a societal norm.

Belief systems are the containers of intuitions which are often inculcated before they are properly examined. It seems to me - and admit I may be wrong - you are attempting to modernize Christianity into a contemporary Western system of values by stripping it of its historic religious connotations hoping to reveal its metaphysical underpinnings, i.e., its denotations into a new advanced system of values more in alignment with modern sensibilities. It demonstrates not merely a conversion but a metamorphosis of a long-held historical belief transcribed into a current and future metaphysic; mysteries which endorse our consent in drawing us on, not unlike Goethe's Eternal Feminine.