Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Harbal]

What I notice in Sculptor, Flash, Harbal and many others

And we notice one or two things in you.

There’s a difference though: you (Harbal) are substantially in the dark about those issues of causation. And those others I mentioned don’t show much tendency toward self-analysis and self-examination.

I don't share your values, that's for sure, by why on earth should I?

What yous notice is far more projection than anything actually real.

So what do I have in my character that you suppose I am projecting on to you?

[Iwannaplato]

Personally, I don't think we are beholden to something simply because our ancestors engaged in it. But if we are going to make that argument Christianity is quite unclearly attached to those with European genes.

I cannot quite agree with you here. For the simple reason that Judaic Christianity, when it confronted the Greek world, merged into something distinct: Greco-Christianity. Catholicism as everyone knows is an interweaving of Platonism as well as numerous strains of thought circulating in the 1st century.

There is also the historical fact that when Mediterranean Roman Catholicism infused itself among the Germanic tribes that those tribes received it while also modifying it according to their cultural pathways.

See The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation.

A more complex relationship than it would appear.

Sure, I wasn't ruling it out as a possible choice for some. Remember I am responding to someone who presented it as the only choice. I am just pointing out that it has its source elsewhere, and the key figure, the one one is supposed to focus on, saw himself as a non-European. I mean, he didn't think about Europe, not really a concept then, but he was coming from a specific culture and a specific religion. Of course Europeans, who weren't Europeans yet all absorbed and modified that religion and created many versions, including the big three versions C, P and O. But it's unclear what the tradition is. Is it what we had before the intrusion?

(as an aside, why consider Platonism purely European. There were contacts with Indian philosophy that may have influenced both Socrates and Plato, who by the way are not particularly European by later standards. And, well, he's a pagan. So, saying that really it's European because a Middle Eastern Religion had pagan ideas added to it seems like weak support to me.)

What if California manages to spread to all of the West some hybrid Eastern/Western religion, with elements from many places? And what point do you decide OK, they managed it, it became a traditions so it's now mine and ours. California's tendencies are hardly pure Buddhism/Hinduism. They've modified it, for example, into British/American pragmatism, with a focus on techniques. And that has spread, for example, as mindfulness all over the place and physical yoga all over the place and a kind of vague spirituality all over the place, where people speak disparagingly of organized religion. Perhaps that is in the process of taking over and become the new tradition.

I mean, in a past life, say, there you were in Rome saying 'I don't give a shit if we are integrating this Middle Eastern religion with Plato.' It's not our tradition.'

Why was that former incarnation of Alex Jacobi or a then-time counterpart wrong?

[Age]

All I can say is that each person, inside of their mind, and with their imagining faculty, will visualize what I so often refer to as a "metaphysical reality" according to their interpretive means and equipment. Even the absolute atheist does this, in my view.

Yes, everyone has their own metaphysical reality in a sense, and to some extent, because we all experience reality differently, according to our upbringing and influences, our prejudices, our pre-suppositions, our imagination, and any number of other factors.

Actually, the human body, itself, experiences the exact same one and only Reality, Itself, always. However, because of 'past experiences' the 'person', within the body, will then 'look at' the 'exact same things' differently, and thus will end up 'seeing' the 'exact same things' differently. Thus, the perception that there are 'different realities' and/or the perception that 'we' 'experience Reality, Itself, differently', can be obtained, and as you say according to one's upbringing and influences. That is; if one has had False or Wrong things 'taught' to them, then they can then have False or Wrong perceptions or views of things.

'We' do not, actually, 'experience Reality, Itself, differently'. When 'we' 'perceive' 'different things', then 'we', in a sense, can make up 'differently realities', and even to the extend that 'we' can make up and/or believe that 'we', actually, 'experience' Reality, Itself, 'differently.

If there is only, really, One Reality, only, then 'we' could never, actually, experience Reality, Itself, differently. However, if there are more than just One Reality, then 'we' could, actually, experience these different 'realities', differently.

Now, if there are or could be more than just One Reality only, then how could this be, exactly?

Or, if there is only One Reality, only, then could it actually be a possibility to actually experience the one Reality differently?

Not everyone would agree with that, of course, and many -perhaps most- people think that reality is just there, right before our eyes, and if we don't quite see what they see, there must be something wrong with us.

But, if one is 'seeing' something that others do not, or conversely if one is 'not seeing' what others do not, then there is not really anything wrong with anyone here. There is, however, of working out, and thus then 'seeing', who is 'looking at' and 'seeing' the One True Reality.

And, once this has be discovered, also, or learned, and understood, fully, then who, exactly, is 'looking at' and 'seeing' the True and Right Reality, which is 'just HERE' for all to 'look at' and 'see', is very simple and easy 'to know', for sure.

Despite your apparent reverence for metaphysics, I think you are more like that than you realise.

If we recognize, and I do, that our culture is sick,

When wasn't it "sick"?

Before what 'the story' of "adam and eve" refers to.

That is when human beings, or the human animal, lived like all the other animals do, and before the human animal, or human being, came to, or evolved to, 'knowing' that it does, actually, 'know' 'between right and wrong'.

Which, the 'exact time frame of' was, or is, would take quite 'some time' to work out, fully, as human beings, or the 'human animal', evolved at different rates different at different places on earth.

I am not much of a reader, as you very well know, but I am familiar enough with Dickens to know that society was pretty sick in his day, and Victorian Britain was one of the most religiously, and morally, earnest periods in our history. It's just that back then the establishment, and the more genteel and refined portion of society, were more successfully able to push and keep the visible symptoms of the sickness out of site.

But, those 'religiously', and 'morally', earnest periods where 'judgments' were being made 'of others' can be of the most 'morally sickest, or most ill', which was had by 'those' who thought or believed that they were the 'most moral'.

'Morally judging', or 'judging others, morally', can be done by those who are the most 'mentally ill and mentally sick'. In fact 'judging' "one's" 'self' as being more 'morally right' or more 'morally better' than another is sign and form of the Truly 'mentally sick and ill'.

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.

Yes, I can't help wondering what this "renewal" would involve, myself. I suspect, and I think others here also suspect it, that you have a firmer idea of what it would involve than you think it wise to own up to. Am I wrong about that, do you really not already have a proposed remedy up your sleeve?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Remember I am responding to someone who presented it as the only choice. I am just pointing out that it has its source elsewhere, and the key figure, the one one is supposed to focus on, saw himself as a non-European. I mean, he didn't think about Europe, not really a concept then, but he was coming from a specific culture and a specific religion. Of course Europeans, who weren't Europeans yet all absorbed and modified that religion and created many versions, including the big three versions C, P and O. But it's unclear what the tradition is. Is it what we had before the intrusion?

But to be frank this misses the point of Christian absolutism.

The idea, the main idea, the determining idea, is that The World for various reasons has been contaminated by Chaos. But the most important aspect of this is the contamination of man's nature. Naturally, you and all of us know how the Story is pictured. The events depicted in the Christian Picture -- a mythological picture if you wish but also one that contains and expresses a metaphysics -- is that God (understood to be the originator of all things, the beginning and the ultimate end), undertook by incarnation into the world, the act of restoration, which means the return to Order. The Christian notion of Order is of tremendous importance. And at the core of this notion is the declaration, the statement, that the ordering force and power is supernatural (i.e. metaphysical). So the logic of this story is that the individual must by an act of giving assent to that supernatural and metaphysical organizing power, choose to become a member of that mystical body.

What I think that you are not seeing clearly enough is that the ideas here, though they definitely depend on or extend from a Specific Event which is understood to have happened in time, and in a specific place, is actually an Idea that transcends the container of the idea. What I mean is that the Idea is understood to apply not only to our own Earth but is a Cosmic Metaphysical idea. In other words -- though I am uncertain if any traditional Christian theologian of a strict theological backgrounding would agree -- the Idea transcends the specificity of the event (the Incarnation and thus the entire story that is Christianity.

It is a metaphysical picture obviously but the core idea is that by Grace the mind and consciousness of man is, let's say, provided with a Grace-infused intelligence that is understood to be the sole means by which that Order can overcome what is understood by the terms Disorder, Chaos and also of course Sin. The entire picture points in the direction of the possibility of initiating a reversal-process. The Christian idea when it is extracted out and presented in clear terms, hinges on the understanding of becoming a member of an organic body (the Church) but more importantly a *mystical body*.

Obviously, this presentation I offer here, which in truth is really the core message of the Christian religion and its revelation, excites right off the bat our will to oppose it as an absolutism. Our reactive response is "How could this possibly be?" And "No, I simply do not believe that such a thing is real or possible!" And then, and all this must be well understood, those who oppose this declaration of such an absolute posture by a theological authority which states that what is said and declared is the will and word of the divine being (the author of all), organize oppositional ideas and platforms of opposition that express their denial that 1) this is even possible and real, and 2) that it actually is the will of a Supreme Being.

But what I am trying to point out is, if you will, the integrity of the idea within its logical structure. One could ask: Is there ever, or could there ever, be an Organizing Power or Idea that could enter our world? Note that the supposition is that this Idea must be (or can only be) metaphysical to the Earth's naturalism. This is actually a crucial idea: the division that exists between naturalism and supernaturalism. The natural, and naturalism, could not ever organize the world in the way that the supernatural is capable of. Herein lies a crux: When the Christian declares lack of faith in *man's abilities alone* and declares that *It cannot be done except by cooperation with the Divine Being* the reference is to logically presented theological ideas. I mean this in the sense of the Idea System (Picture) that is presented.

(As an aside, why consider Platonism purely European. There were contacts with Indian philosophy that may have influenced both Socrates and Plato, who by the way are not particularly European by later standards. And, well, he's a pagan. So, saying that really it's European because a Middle Eastern Religion had pagan ideas added to it seems like weak support to me.)

This does not really matter either. Because if Platonic ideas are *true* they are true because they are Cosmic Principles that would be true, or are true, in this world and in all possible worlds. So to discredit or to present the ideas as coming from a foreign source is really an irrelevancy.

Now, my other observation about your position -- the defense of indigenous paganism -- is really that indigenous paganism does not seem to have such a Grand Picture as that which I expressed above. What does it advocate for? To what degree could it (whatever it is) function as a grand, uniting ideal?

Please remember: I began this thread with an historical who describes and defends the entire idea of the Christian project and the Christian conversion of Europe. I think that when we better understand the core ideas that are operative -- beyond superficial interpretations -- we can then better understand what we are in fact talking about.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't share your values, that's for sure, by why on earth should I?

Not the right question.

[Harbal]

I don't share your values, that's for sure, but why on earth should I?

Not the right question.

It was the only thing I was curious about.

What question would you have preferred?

[Iwannaplato]

But to be frank this misses the point of Christian absolutism.

The idea, the main idea, the determining idea, is that The World for various reasons has been contaminated by Chaos.

It's also been contaminated by toxic order.

But the most important aspect of this is the contamination of man's nature. Naturally, you and all of us know how the Story is pictured. The events depicted in the Christian Picture -- a mythological picture if you wish but also one that contains and expresses a metaphysics -- is that God (understood to be the originator of all things, the beginning and the ultimate end), undertook by incarnation into the world, the act of restoration, which means the return to Order. The Christian notion of Order is of tremendous importance. And at the core of this notion is the declaration, the statement, that the ordering force and power is supernatural (i.e. metaphysical). So the logic of this story is that the individual must by an act of giving assent to that supernatural and metaphysical organizing power, choose to become a member of that mystical body.

What I think that you are not seeing clearly enough

You have perhaps said these ideas somewhere, but I don't think you've said them to me. So, of course, I am not seeing your position clearly until it is present clearly.

is that the ideas here, though they definitely depend on or extend from a Specific Event which is understood to have happened in time, and in a specific place, is actually an Idea that transcends the container of the idea. What I mean is that the Idea is understood to apply not only to our own Earth but is a Cosmic Metaphysical idea. In other words -- though I am uncertain if any traditional Christian theologian of a strict theological backgrounding would agree -- the Idea transcends the specificity of the event (the Incarnation and thus the entire story that is Christianity.

It is a metaphysical picture obviously but the core idea is that by Grace the mind and consciousness of man is, let's say, provided with a Grace-infused intelligence that is understood to be the sole means by which that Order can overcome what is understood by the terms Disorder, Chaos and also of course Sin. The entire picture points in the direction of the possibility of initiating a reversal-process. The Christian idea when it is extracted out and presented in clear terms, hinges on the understanding of becoming a member of an organic body (the Church) but more importantly a *mystical body*.

Obviously, this presentation I offer here, which in truth is really the core message of the Christian religion and its revelation, excites right off the bat our will to oppose it as an absolutism.

I don't particularly agree with a number of things tucked into the Christian version of this. But my issue is not with absolutism - though perhaps you could define that term just to make sure we are not talking past each other.

Our reactive response is "How could this possibly be?" And "No, I simply do not believe that such a thing is real or possible!"

Those are not my reactions.

And then, and all this must be well understood, those who oppose this declaration of such an absolute posture by a theological authority

who is this theological authority? (I understand that you probably are not thinking of anyone in particular, but this is not incidental. If it is a Christian theological authority and one not generally thought of has a heretic by other authorities in Christianity, then there's likely many more specifics than this very generalized idea here.)

But what I am trying to point out is, if you will, the integrity of the idea within its logical structure. One could ask: Is there ever, or could there ever, be an Organizing Power or Idea that could enter our world?

Sure.

Note that the supposition is that this Idea must be (or can only be) metaphysical to the Earth's naturalism. This is actually a crucial idea: the division that exists between naturalism and supernaturalism.

I tend to dislike the latter term. Any deities are to me natural. If they exist, they are natural. Of course I am a pagan. But beieving they or it is natural, does not for me preclude what you are saying before this. Though, again, defining terms might help.

The natural, and naturalism, could not ever organize the world in the way that the supernatural is capable of. Herein lies a crux: When the Christian declares lack of faith in *man's abilities alone* and declares that *It cannot be done except by cooperation with the Divine Being* the reference is to logically presented theological ideas.

One need not be a monotheist or a Christian to believe that one needs cooperation and help from a or The Divine Being. One need not have a supernatural category, though one would believe in phenomena that many categorize as supernatural.

(As an aside, why consider Platonism purely European. There were contacts with Indian philosophy that may have influenced both Socrates and Plato, who by the way are not particularly European by later standards. And, well, he's a pagan. So, saying that really it's European because a Middle Eastern Religion had pagan ideas added to it seems like weak support to me.)

This does not really matter either. Because if Platonic ideas are *true* they are true because they are Cosmic Principles that would be true, or are true, in this world and in all possible worlds. So to discredit or to present the ideas as coming from a foreign source is really an irrelevancy.

I mean seriously. You've been going on about Europe. You dismissed the Eastern ideas because of where they came from. You may also dismiss them for other reasons. But after I point out that a middle eastern religion entered Europe, now that doesn't matter, because it's the truth. Well, peachy, then stop using the origins of ideas as a criteria to dismiss them yourself. When I point out that Plato is pagan and likely influenced by traditions external to Europe, and so saying that Christianity is really European because its Platonic, as you said, also doesn't make sense. Now thinking in terms of origins should not be a criterion.

Well, great. Let's throw all that tradition, conservative, European, liberals are per se, timelessly confused, or the Left because they change tradition..........................out.

And focus on the idea and not where they came from. Cause already this post of yours could have ended up getting you tortured and killed by traditional Eurpoeans at various times and we go back a while and it certainly would not have been the Left wanting to put you in an early grave.

So, here we are. I, personally, can go along with the idea that we humans need cooperation. As what would be considered a pagan I disagree with a number of ways you want to break down reality

Now, my other observation about your position -- the defense of indigenous paganism -- is really that indigenous paganism does not seem to have such a Grand Picture as that which I expressed above. What does it advocate for? To what degree could it (whatever it is) function as a grand, uniting ideal?

Everything that has gone before failed. But any unifying set of ideas, it would seem, should be both true and get enough consensus to work. I don't see anything right now that's like that. I do not want a Christian regime.

Please remember: I began this thread with an historical who describes and defends the entire idea of the Christian project and the Christian conversion of Europe. I think that when we better understand the core ideas that are operative -- beyond superficial interpretations -- we can then better understand what we are in fact talking about.

Well, I'd need to understand 1) how this would be done again and 2) why we should expect even Christians, with their history to get alone with each other, let alone with others.

I think secularization, in its modern forms came about for a number of reasons, but specifically on topic: 1) because, as I said earlier and I don't think your responded to it: Christ specifically proclaimed the separate of the secular and the spiritual: he granted dominion of the earth to the secular - at that time sort of pagan, though empire level, which has many 'machines' not particularly pagan. 2) because of the problems within Christianity - for example the wars that it led to between Christians.

Christianity undermined itself. And along the way actively tried to destroy any competition. We often think of science and religion as foes, but actually Christianity and the technocrats have a long, violent collaboration.

And then there are many other issues that I would need looked at if we are hoping to restore via Christianity. As one example, all the sexual abuse that came out of their views about sex. The Catholic church from priest level up to all the dark Popes have been beyond decadence. And while the majority were discrete about their horrific decadence, some of Popes were not.

You may well think I am missing the point again. But if we are going to look at your core point, it seems to me you could drop calling it Christian and just call it a core metaphysical approach. But since you use that word, I'd need to understand why you don't want to drop that. The metaphysics of Christianity isn't just what you said, it's a lot of ideas.

Perhaps you're not asking the right questions or are focused on the wrong things, given what you say above about origins not mattering, but the truth of the ideas mattering.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You may well think I am missing the point again. But if we are going to look at your core point, it seems to me you could drop calling it Christian and just call it a core metaphysical approach. But since you use that word, I'd need to understand why you don't want to drop that. The metaphysics of Christianity isn't just what you said, it's a lot of ideas.

You might be missing the point if you do not understand that I am working to clarify what is the real and true essence of Catholic-Christian belief. I am drawing these ideas from substantial theological writings and not pulling them out of my own ass.

You are wrong and right when you say I could simply refer to it as a metaphysical approach. The fact is that I do see it in that way: an abstract metaphysics that can be described rationally (at least made clear) and presented as a diagram. But it would cease being actual Christianity which, of course, entirely depends on the Incarnation-event.

Supernaturalism in Catholicism-Christianity cannot ever be negated or reconfigured. I think this is a core and non-negotiable element. If it did happen that someone reconfigured Christianity into a naturalistic description, it would simply cease to be *genuine* Christianity. It would become a pseudo-Christianity and a simulacrum.

I don't particularly agree with a number of things tucked into the Christian version of this. But my issue is not with absolutism - though perhaps you could define that term just to make sure we are not talking past each other.

The Catholic Church (up to a certain point in modern time) defined itself as the unique and the one true religion. This is a fact. So in this sense Christianity is an absolutist religion. There is a great deal more that could be said about this absolutism and why the Church does define itself in this way. But I think everyone knows, and many are rubbed the wrong way by it, that Catholicism says "No salvation outside of the Church".

Now, it must be understood as well that in the post-Vatican ll world that *agents of chaos* have entered into the very heart of the Church and are, or they have, rewritten its liturgy, and in this way altered, substantially, the core and extremely strict teaching of the Catholic religion. There is a great conflict in the Church today about all of this and it has reached a near-schizm point.

Our reactive response is "How could this possibly be?" And "No, I simply do not believe that such a thing is real or possible!"

Those are not my reactions.

The next sentence should have been an explanation of what you mean.

Who is this theological authority?

The Catholic Church of course, but really (according to the Catholic Church!) the Trinity of spiritual powers. But here we must face a stone cold fact: It is denied that the Catholic Church, and any human organization, can know what God is or what God wants (or demands) because, they will say, these are all organizations of men and must be looked at suspiciously and doubtingly. This position, as you can see, must negate any absolutist declaration.

But the interesting thing here, really, is the issue whether it is possible to define anything about this Reality, this Life, in absolutist terms. Can anything *absolute* be said? Is there any doctrine that we might say is *absolutely true*?

We are modernists, and you are a modernist, so there is no way that we could answer in the affirmative. C'mon, admit it ...

I tend to dislike the latter term [supernaturalism]. Any deities are to me natural. If they exist, they are natural. Of course I am a pagan. But beieving they or it is natural, does not for me preclude what you are saying before this. Though, again, defining terms might help.

My understanding is that Christianity is a supernatural religion based on a metaphysics and philosophy that is supernaturalist. And that means quite precisely that though naturalism is recognized, it is supernaturalism that *makes the man* in the Christian sense. I am just trying to clarify.

One need not be a monotheist or a Christian to believe that one needs cooperation and help from a or The Divine Being. One need not have a supernatural category, though one would believe in phenomena that many categorize as supernatural.

Myself, I have never been able to conceive how a non-monotheism can even be logically described or defended. But I can definitely understand how the gods of the Greek pantheon were conceived. The function of Aphrodite for example; the function of Hermes. If I were anything in that world it would be a devotee of Hermes ...

I mean seriously. You've been going on about Europe. You dismissed the Eastern ideas because of where they came from. You may also dismiss them for other reasons.

What?!?

I do not think in anything I have written over the last year that I have dismissed Eastern ideas. If you mean my comments about California Radicalism -- you may have misunderstood. These are knotty topics.

The real fact of the matter is that Catholic theology and philosophy is a melding of many different strains of idea, from numerous areas, that began to form in the First century and thereafter.

But it has a very demanding and sturdy core -- and that core is (according to Catholic-Christian theology) thoroughly and absolutely non-negotiable. I believe that absolutist core might come from the Judaic side. But I can also see how it comes from the Greek side too.

[I do sell some Indulgences -- $250 a pop -- with which some things might be bent a little. PM me if you are in need.]

[Iwannaplato]

You might be missing the point if you do not understand that I am working to clarify what is the real and true essence of Catholic-Christian belief. I am drawing these ideas from substantial theological writings and not pulling them out of my own ass.

I didn't say or think you were pulling the core ideas out of your ass.

You are wrong and right when you say I could simply refer to it as a metaphysical approach. The fact is that I do see it in that way: an abstract metaphysics that can be described rationally (at least made clear) and presented as a diagram. But it would cease being actual Christianity which, of course, entirely depends on the Incarnation-event.

Well, keep the incarnation event. But leave Christianity out of it. The latter is something ad hoc plopped together by committees from texts that do not work together well and then the diverse set of belief systems that get batched under that name.

Supernaturalism in Catholicism-Christianity cannot ever be negated or reconfigured. I think this is a core and non-negotiable element. If it did happen that someone reconfigured Christianity into a naturalistic description, it would simply cease to be *genuine* Christianity. It would become a pseudo-Christianity and a simulacrum.

Can you say why? What facet of supernaturalism to do you need that could not have another term?

The Catholic Church (up to a certain point in modern time) defined itself as the unique and the one true religion. This is a fact. So in this sense Christianity is an absolutist religion.

Well, Catholicism would be absolutist, then. Christianity cannot be absolutist. It's a batch of religions with contradictions. It's not one religion.

There is a great deal ore that could be said about this absolutism and why the Church does define itself in this way. But I think everyone knows, and many are rubbed the wrong way by it, that Catholicism says "No salvation outside of the Church".

I don't really care about what some people get rubbed the wrong way about. Some people would get rubbed the wrong way by everything that has been written in these forums, including my posts, and including any possible post that anyone will ever write here.

I get it. You think some/many people will react negatively to your ideas. Join the club. The human club.

Our reactive response is "How could this possibly be?" And "No, I simply do not believe that such a thing is real or possible!"

Those are not my reactions.

The next sentence should have been an explanation of what you mean.

I think it's pretty clear. You said 'our reactions'. I assumed that this meant that everyone, which would include me, or yours and mine, or...some set, in any case, of which I am supposedly a member. But I don't have those reactions. I can't see what isn't clear. Perhaps you didn't mean to include me in 'our'. Fine. But in case I was included and expected to react that way, I said those reactions are not mine.

Who is this theological authority?

The Catholic Church but really (according to the Catholic Church) the Trinity of spiritual powers. But here we must face a stone cold fact: It is denied that the Catholic Church, and any human organization, can know what God is or what God wants (or demands) because, they will say, these are all organizations of men and must be looked at suspiciously and doubtingly.

It is denied by whom or what? It seems like you just presented me with contradictions.

But the interesting thing here, really, is the issue whether it is possible to define anything about this Reality, this Life, in absolutist terms. Can anything *absolute* be said? Is there any doctrine that we might say is *absolutely true*?

We are modernists, and you are a modernist, so there is no way that we could answer in the affirmative.

I'm not a modernist. Not in the aesthetic sense nor in the history of ideas sense. Nor am I a postmodernist. I mean, I can have moments of these things, but fundamentally I'm pagan/animist.

My understanding is that Christianity is a supernatural religion based on a metaphysics and philosophy that is supernaturalist. And that means quite precisely that though naturalism is recognized, it is supernaturalism that *makes the man* in the Christian sense. I am just trying to clarify.

But what does supernatural mean to you?

I mean seriously. You've been going on about Europe. You dismissed the Eastern ideas because of where they came from. You may also dismiss them for other reasons.

What?!?

I do not think in anything I have written over the last year that I have dismissed Eastern ideas. If you mean my comments about California Radicalism -- you may have misunderstood. These are knotty topics.

I meant, you dismissed them being applicable/useful/appropriate. That people only engaged with them superficially.

What I have noticed personally is the degree to which foreign traditions (Buddhism, Vedic religion, and others) seem to be overlays or superficial impositions. But the actual *self*, the person, is better understood and seen as an outcome of our own historical processes.

IOW the truth value didn't matter.

I added that to all your talk about traditions. That we should follow European traditions. I pointed out that Christians are shallow about their religion, mostly.

Perhaps after time integration of Eastern religions will lead to as much or more profound beliefs/participation in those external religions just as the external Christianity was taken on in Europe.

But now it's the truth value that counts, not the origin, not the superficiality of the believers.

So, I'm not sure why we bothered talking about the origins or the superficiality, if it's the truth that matters.

And the absolutist Catholic Church would not like what you are saying. At least, I don't think so. It's seems likely a lot of what they also consider essential is not essential to you.

So, I don't understand why they are the measure.

[Harbal]

You might be missing the point if you do not understand that I am working to clarify what is the real and true essence of Catholic-Christian belief. I am drawing these ideas from substantial theological writings and not pulling them out of my own ass.

I didn't say or think you were pulling the core ideas out of your ass.

But I would say that is where he ought to shove them.

[Iwannaplato]

You might be missing the point if you do not understand that I am working to clarify what is the real and true essence of Catholic-Christian belief. I am drawing these ideas from substantial theological writings and not pulling them out of my own ass.

I didn't say or think you were pulling the core ideas out of your ass.

But I would say that is where he ought to shove them.

I'm still not sure what they are. I mean, I did get a bit more. And I know that some people will react negatively. And maybe he thinks in absolutist terms, or maybe not since he calls himself a modernist who can't do that, though it seems like we should. I got the impression somewhere he wasn't a theist. That could be on me. Maybe he is. Maybe I'll find out. Then perhaps I'll be able to decide where the ideas should be shelved.
Christian civilization led to the modern secular society as much as the 50s led to the 60s. I don't know why there is so much faith in what already failed by its own standards But I'm not even sure he has faith in Catholicism, God, faith itself. But perhaps this will seep out somehow.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can you say why?

Why: Grace. Charity (in the theological sense). The infusion of Grace into man’s intellect. And the transformation of man by a supernatural power. The entire construction is based on forging a relationship with a Trinity of powers.

What facet of supernaturalism do you need that could not have another term?

You mean “What facet of supernaturalism is needed” and the answer is (in the Christian concept) the entire facet, but you could switch terms, perhaps, but with similar ones if the core idea remained intact.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm still not sure what they are. I mean, I did get a bit more. And I know that some people will react negatively. And maybe he thinks in absolutist terms, or maybe not since he calls himself a modernist who can't do that, though it seems like we should. I got the impression somewhere he wasn't a theist. That could be on me. Maybe he is. Maybe I'll find out. Then perhaps I'll be able to decide where the ideas should be shelved.

But I'm not even sure he has faith in Catholicism, God, faith itself. But perhaps this will seep out somehow.

Why must everything hinge back to me? Why is what I believe so necessary for you?

Iwannaplato: no answer that I will provide, or that classic theology provides, will satisfy you! You do not agree with the core premises.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And the absolutist Catholic Church would not like what you are saying. At least, I don't think so. It's seems likely a lot of what they also consider essential is not essential to you.

They would, at least I hope so, pat me on the head …

… but let the patting stop there.

[Iwannaplato]

Why: Grace. Charity (in the theological sense). The infusion of Grace into man’s intellect. And the transformation of man by a supernatural power. The entire construction is based on forging a relationship with a Trinity of powers.

But why does it have to be categorized as not natural. Isn't anything real natural? You keep using the term. I don't see any use for saying that real things are not natural.

You mean “What facet of supernaturalism is needed” and the answer is (in the Christian concept) the entire facet, but you could switch terms, perhaps, but with similar ones if the core idea remained intact.

Well, the term arose in the Middle Ages I believe. So, Catholicism managed just fine without it. And nature is all over the place, but interestingly also meant that which gives order. And just in case it isn't clear, my objection to supernatural is not a categorical objection to the kinds of phenomena categorized as supernatural. It's the really quite Abrahamist split that bothers me.

You mentioned the incarnation. Does this include, vitally at least, the whole crucifiction, sacrifice,taking on of our guilt thing?