Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Dubious]

Your statement The real issue has to do I think with the purity of the person doing the imagining, historically has had some of the most inimical side-effects by enforcing a sense of infallibility on oneself or worse projecting such a near stainless persona on someone and following it as a infallible guide. Was there ever a guru who didn't consider himself replete with an innate sense of knowing, whether or not he actually knew, that could easily be thrust upon others within hearing distance. NO! Not even Jesus or the Buddha himself!

I am saddened to learn that even an extra-strength butt plug with remote control seems to have little helped.

What you fail to recognize in what you have written is that you are talking about yourself.

You act like the •guru• when you fill your pronouncements with such determined certainty.

Yet, and to be factual, there surely were and are gurus who did know what they professed to know within the episteme they worked within. Do you see my point, my Grumpy Griping Grandpa?

Your purpose here is in nothing but negation. It is your virulence which from my angle of view indicates a neurotic relationship to the material presented. That’s your issue to solve and forgive me for pointing this out yet these issues (embittered psychology among others) are really part of the issues and questions under examination.

To a great extent, our future paradigms will depend on how many lies of the past we're still willing to accept.

This implies that you, Mr Ultra-Grump, know of the real truths that overturn those false truths you believe you can expose. But what you propose, in the end, is empty of content. You go on tirades and then, like Chekhov’s geese, you shut your trap for a time, but cackle again with dawn’s light.

The real issue has to do I think with the purity of the person doing the imagining
is a fair statement — certainly within the context of the episteme (if that is as far as one can or will go) of Christian revelation.

Your real negation is, I think, that you absolutely deny validity to the Christian picture and metaphysic, and therefore to any revelation because you are certain it was hallucinated by a psycho.

This is really •old hat• Dubes.

The fact is that what has inspired and moved entire generations of men in their historical and civilizational constructions, has come from their greater or lesser purity in precisely the sense I meant.

I am unsure if you can distinguish between a •lie• and a •truth• because both exist in ephemeral zones of meaning & value.

You are truly one snotty little piece of crap with all the brain power of a single snowflake falling on a hot surface which, except for a few, has already been noticed. I note my views just as you make your views known, being likewise true for everyone else. News flash! It is after all a Philosophy Forum where ephemeral zones of meaning and value get discussed.

What's old hat is your perennial repeat of the same mind set you started with only slightly modified by more reading. In conclusion as much of a dead end as IC ever was forever expounding the same theme borrowed from others.

What you are in dire need of is a snot drainer; the more you read, the more is produced. Do yourself a favor and avoid lying down!

[FlashDangerpants]

Huh? There have been Empires that were not Monotheistic (Rome for the first 600 years, Egypt, Babylon and more). There have also been Empires with diverse religions (the Mongols, who had the largest empire of all time and adopted a variety of religions from their conquests).

Of course all of these empires eventually fell apart, but many lasted longer than any monotheistic empires. It may be true that centralized morality helps empire building, but there's not much evidence supporting that.

Rome and the Vatican have been around for nearly 2000 years; the German nations called themselves the Holy Roman Empire in 1512.

Can you give me some examples of "many lasted longer than any monotheistic empires"?

The Vatican was never an empire. In addition, it didn't split from the Orthodox church until 1054.

The Holy Roman Empire came and went many times, from Charlemagne, to Barbarossa. But it was never a continuous empire for long.

Your best example would be the Roman Empire based in Constantinople, which did survive for 1000 years, although its boundries and power varied. It was Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.

Let us not forget the magnificent Ethiopian Empire

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are truly one snotty little piece of crap with all the brain power of a single snowflake falling on a hot surface which, except for a few, has already been noticed.

Ouch! Ouch! This is unbearable! Stop — STOP! I cannot bear it.

What you are in dire need of is a snot drainer

Are they sold on Amazon? eBay? Etsy??!!

[Alexiev]

Rome and the Vatican have been around for nearly 2000 years; the German nations called themselves the Holy Roman Empire in 1512.

Can you give me some examples of "many lasted longer than any monotheistic empires"?

The Vatican was never an empire. In addition, it didn't split from the Orthodox church until 1054.

The Holy Roman Empire came and went many times, from Charlemagne, to Barbarossa. But it was never a continuous empire for long.

Your best example would be the Roman Empire based in Constantinople, which did survive for 1000 years, although its boundries and power varied. It was Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.

Let us not forget the magnificent Ethiopian Empire

Ras Tafari no dead, mon.

[seeds]

You accuse me of "TDS" because I recoil in disgust at you (and millions of other cult members) treating the most brazen pathological liar in human history as if he were some kind of "Christ-like" figure.

For my part (your comment was directed to Wizard) I cannot accuse you of anything really. Accusation is not the purpose of anything I write....

If that's so, then it appears as if somebody is hacking into your account and posting stuff like this...

Seeds … better than TeeVee, better than YooToob. A multimedia spectacle of TDS.

Anyway, back to your more recent post...

...I am far more interested in *seeing* and understanding what is going on around us.

That is certainly a worthwhile goal.

Unfortunately, it is limited to the degree to which one is conscious enough (awake enough) to actually comprehend what it is they are seeing.

And that is in reference to the issue that most humans do not realize that we are all walking around on this planet in varying degrees of somnambulism, wherein most haven't the slightest realization of the fact that there are "higher levels of wakefulness" above their own. of which I loosely represented in one of my fanciful illustrations...



(My apologies to those who have become bored or annoyed with my illustrations, but I created them for these types of conversations, so I'm going to use them.)

...True it is that I definitely and adamantly believe that the Christian revelation cannot and should not be side-stepped or negated.

And if you would make the slightest effort to understand what my theory is about, you would realize that I too feel the same way. I mean, good lord, my theory is thoroughly steeped in Christian metaphysics, especially in the notions encapsulated in the following series of Biblical verses and commentary...

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

To me, that verse is obviously referencing our eternal souls, not our bodies.

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being;...For we are also his offspring."

For in our mother's womb we once lived, and moved, and had our being,...for we were also her offspring.

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

When our mother's appeared to us - post birth - we could see her as she is, and we were like her. The same will apply again to our familial relationship with God after our second and final birth...

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water [via the human womb] and of the Spirit [via death], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit....

...Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

We're talking about an already set-in-motion (done deal) situation wherein God has already initiated the process that is going to...

"...change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself..."

In other words, through death, our "vile [earthly] bodies" will be left behind as nothing more than a higher form of "placental-like" discard,...



...and thus we (according to a more advanced interpretation of Christian metaphysics)...

"...shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye...'

...into whatever it is that God (our ultimate parent) is in that higher context of reality where God and our true eternal form (the same form as God) will finally be revealed to us.

So, I guess it's not so much of a "fashioning" of our "vile bodies" into that which is likened unto God's glorious body, but more of a revealing of what we already are once we discard our vile bodies (these "placental-like/seed-like" shells) through the process we call death.

All of which I tried to depict in yet another of my fanciful little illustrations...



So, yeah, I'm with you, AJ, when it comes to promoting the "true implications" of Christianity.

And that would be in direct opposition to all of the mythological nonsense involving the so-called "Fall of Man" that allegedly took place in a phantasmagorical garden where two boneheaded humans were convinced by a talking snake (Satan) to eat the magical fruit from a tree that should never have been put there in the first place.

Which, of course, instigated the need for a savior to rescue all future humans from an eternity of torture in Hell because God failed to perform some simple garden pest control.

Pure and utter nonsense!

On the other hand, unlike you, I see the need to bring forth and highlight what is good and logical in all of the other spiritual traditions of the world,...

(which, according to Hermetic philosophy, was given to them at their inceptions by God)

...so that none of the world's religions are excluded from the aforementioned project of formulating a new and universal "code of conduct" for all humans to follow.

Hence my earlier suggestion of having AI help us achieve that goal.

In that sense your psychedelic inspired and determined Vision is actually a tripped-out version of the Christian Picture, but instead of the God of Theology and strict morality, your God is expressed in this floating *eye* which, according to your descriptions, looks down on mere amoebas. And your preaching, and your diagramming, is one directed to such uni-celled creatures.

Again, if you would make the slightest effort to understand my "...tripped-out version of the Christian Picture...," you would realize that the God I am depicting in the theory, looks down on us in pretty much the same way that a human mother looks down at the fetus within her womb...



Indeed, I only use the analogy of "amoebas" to show the vast contrast between our temporary (in-utero) level of consciousness and that of our ultimate parent's level of consciousness.

Now I am always willing to admit that my theory could be wrong (bonkers).

However, if you can come up with a concept that is more "NATURAL" and "ORGANIC" than the one I am promoting; one that implies an ever-growing, ever-evolving, eternally fun, interesting, and "fruitful" purpose for all humans,...

...then let's hear it.

(And thus ends my Sunday [4/21/24] sermon. Please be generous when the offering plate makes its way down your aisle, lest you burn in Hell. )
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

If that's so, then it appears as if somebody is hacking into your account and posting stuff like this...

Seeds … better than TeeVee, better than YooToob. A multimedia spectacle of TDS.

[Alexis Jacobi]

An accusation is very different from observation.

I don’t accuse you because you have the ideas and views you do.

[Alexis Jacobi]

With all the sanctimonious bullshit here rendered by Herr Elder the master proselytizer on the site, I imagine it should be you who's centered in the picture. The fact is there are any number of ways to consider the modern dilemma and its future with or without the context of Christianity, it's ecumenical mandates or indeed, any centralized view by some visionary Paraclete who happens to proclaim it.

What I have noticed, and what I have been trying to get worked out in my own thinking, is the degree to which many people -- indeed most who participate on this site -- have a huge problem understanding the concept of revelation. But this has as much to do with the way and means that Idea enters and affects our world in essential and profound ways. To say that the Hebrew revelation is an encounter with the Word, and it is the word that carries through all of prophetic revelation and history and is the force that most underpins Occidental civilization, is the contention that I make. Clearly I refer to the Greek sense of Logos.

Those of our modernity, and so many on this site, have afflicted minds and intelligences and, so it seems, are entirely hung up with the understanding that *revelation* is something that comes to man from an invisible, non-quantifiable realm. (Meaning that they cannot accept this.) That is the human realm though -- it is what makes humans what they are. I use the simplistic word *metaphysical* as an abbreviation for all that. Yet I could also say supernatural though that word carries connotations that will quite easily confuse people who are already pretty confused. My position is that we need to re-clarify our understanding of the Revelation (this is what Christianity is) and, if it is possible, at the very least stop *hating* it. For this reason I focus on the fact of the deeply psychological aspect of Christianity-hate. A virulent stance, often empowered by a negative animus, that seems to me to *get hold of people*. (In no sense does this mean that genuine criticism is invalid).

To understand this psychological element is not easy. For just as the entire idea of revelation, meaning and idea are not visible quantities, and do not have a *location*, so too the negative animus I refer to seems also located in the realm of idea and *contaminated emotion* if I can put it like this.

Some *exemplars* here on this forum express the psychological fervor better than others. Dubious for example is a good one. The dripping contempt for the idea of a divine authority, and the validity and realness of the prophetic revelation that began with the Jews and was then transferred to the Christians and has operated, and indeed still operates, at the core of a) our own selves, and b) our civilization, is not simply an intellectual opposition but (in my view) seems deeper. Touch this locus in the mind of Dubious and he flies into a rage.

To propose "that revelation is something that comes to man from an invisible, non-quantifiable realm" is a very difficult and fraught assertion when we, those moderns extruded into the present post-Christian perspective, attempt to understand what, then, is being talked about. We simply cannot grasp the idea of a Being that originated the Cosmos and ourselves in it, that much is clear enough. And since that is the essential issue it also extends to all of that which I refer to as *metaphysical*.

The proposition that there is something, some power or force (divinity, God) that has created along with the material manifestation another level of imposed order, is an idea that is intolerable to many. Yes indeed, they hate and resent any particular Christian figure (and most religious figures) who express moral authority, but in reality that boils down to their assertion that no such *organizing force* could exist, and does exist, in our Cosmos. But the curious side-effect of this is that once you have made that assertion (i.e. no authoritative metaphysic that came into the world along with the physical-material manifestation), you necessarily undermine any authority and the idea of Authority.

Now, the reasoning behind these positions is certainly not unintelligible to me: I am a Modern of exactly the sort I describe, and all the difficulties any one of us has with accepting, and realizing, that recognition of an authority and a authoritative position I certainly share. However, what I notice predominantly in the anti-Christian posture of today is less that it *makes sense* or is a genuine *positive advancement* over and against what is described as an obscurantist position, but the deeply psychological rebellious element in the men who are most adamant exponents of the anti-Christian position.

In order to understand what *Christianity* is you actually have to perform a complex and involved preliminary manoeuvre of accurately assessing what it is. This is far harder than it appears. One can do that in a variety of different ways and here there are at least 2 main poles: as an outsider looking in and explaining it in modernistic intellectual terms. That results in a working definition that could be favorable or unfavorable depending on the ideological position of the observer (interpreter). Or one could be one who accepts that validity of the concept of revelation, and accepts a divine figure or authority (and has a way of explaining that), but this obviously involves the notion of a deity and, as I say, a metaphysics that is understood to be *part-and-parcel* of the manifest world. This latter position is, as I say, completely intolerable to the larger set of participants on this forum.

But here is the main thing: no matter how you do look at it, and no matter how you *organize your explanations* of what it is, or is not, the reality is that our entire *world* from top to bottom and from side to side, in every aspect and area, with none excluded, has been molded by Christian concerns and the prophetic impetus which set it all in motion. Like it or hate it, understand it or refuse to understand: these ideas have moved in our world in thoroughly decisive manner.

One question is What are these ideas. But the real question is what is IDEA and how does it enter into and determine meaning & value.

[Harbal]

What I have noticed, and what I have been trying to get worked out in my own thinking, is the degree to which many people -- indeed most who participate on this site -- have a huge problem understanding the concept of revelation.

Not understanding it has never been a problem to me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I have noticed, and what I have been trying to get worked out in my own thinking, is the degree to which many people -- indeed most who participate on this site -- have a huge problem understanding the concept of revelation.

Not understanding it has never been a problem to me.

Of course, Harbal. But we also know that you are thoroughly and commitedly on the outside of any comprehension of history, historical process, ideas and their molding force and relevance — simply put of any and all topics and subjects catagorizable under the term •philosophy•.

What marks you and makes you interesting (and relevant) is just in that: you are a sort of model of a (God help us all) New Man who moves with self-acclaimed right in our present.

Man-becomes-termite is one way to see it.

[Harbal]

What I have noticed, and what I have been trying to get worked out in my own thinking, is the degree to which many people -- indeed most who participate on this site -- have a huge problem understanding the concept of revelation.

Not understanding it has never been a problem to me.

Of course, Harbal. But we also know that you..........

Actually, all you know is what I tell you.

What marks you and makes you interesting (and relevant) is just in that: you are a sort of model of a (God help us all) New Man who moves with self-acclaimed right in our present.

What also marks me is that I don't go on the internet telling other people how to live their lives, and thinking I'm somehow superior.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Those themes and topics brought up and discussed transcend any individual.

[Dubious]

Those themes and topics brought up and discussed transcend any individual.

The world at large cares not in the least. No one knows how any revaluation in progress will manifest itself and all the influences which will determine it. Our collective writings and opinions here have zero effect on any of it.

It means less than zilch, mine, yours and everyone else. Debate, with corresponding insults, is the name of the game and nothing more.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Those themes and topics brought up and discussed transcend any individual.

The world at large cares not in the least. No one knows how any revaluation in progress will manifest itself and all the influences which will determine it. Our collective writings and opinions here have zero effect on any of it.

It means less than zilch, mine, yours and everyone else. Debate, with corresponding insults, is the name of the game and nothing more.

One could say, of you, that you’ve dug your hole and, if it were like a bed, lie in it. Your •pronouncements• have the patina of real certainty and you definitely believe you are a carrier of truth.

You embody something very akin to nihilism. One could say you are infected by it. It would be one thing perhaps if, like a happy drunk you are a happy nihilist, but you’re a grumpy embittered nihilist who seeks to impose a pretty dreary perspective

Sure, this forum is irrelevant to *the world* but that assertion doesn’t mean that the ideas talked through are irrelevant to that world.

And yes it is true that no one knows what the future of Europe and it’s civilization is (my general concern is there obviously) but to say that is meaningless from your mouth. You are meaningless!

What a downer you are!

[Harbal]

One could say, of you, that you’ve dug your hole and, if it were like a bed, lie in it.

You don't see many bed shaped holes; I don't suppose there's much demand for them.