Christianity

[Belinda]

Hey Henry! I trust AJ's short explanation of unmuddlement should now unmuddle you!

[Belinda]

"Her progressive socialist-Marxist commitments seem to subordinate here Christianesque sense"

Because Belinda's in the know. Jesus was a goddamn marxist historical materialist if there ever wuz one. But the bourgeoisie from Rome onward have had an ideological hegemony on the development of the religion... and have distorted it almost beyond recognition. This is joke #137 of western civilization.

The teaching of Jesus of Nazareth covers progressive welfare socialism including "your goods put not to usury", but not totalitarian communism.

“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.

(Exodus)

[promethean75]

"but not totalitarian communism."

That's the prevalent oxymoron that permeates all western interpretations of Marxism (thanks to conservative propaganda).

What you are calling 'totalitarian' is in fact the manifestation of a transitional phase during a revolution; leninists claim that central ('total') control must be given to a relatively small party of intelligentsia, without which all organization and momentum in the revolution would be lost (it doesn't happen over night, btw). See the 'vanguard' concept.

Now what happened wuz, all the historical instances of revolution either stopped at this phase - their leaders declaring that the revolution had been achieved and wuz now over - or they transformed almost immediately into state capitalist systems. Hence the saying 'socialism cannot exist in a sea of capitalism'.

So when a Shawn Hannity or a Glenn Beck or a McCarthy are getting paid to sit in front of a camera and terrify you with stories of how horrible Marxism is, just remember that Marxism hasn't yet existed anywhere on earth in its final and theoretically mature form.

Or don't, and continue to buy their books.

[Belinda]

"but not totalitarian communism."

That's the prevalent oxymoron that permeates all western interpretations of Marxism (thanks to conservative propaganda).

What you are calling 'totalitarian' is in fact the manifestation of a transitional phase during a revolution; leninists claim that central ('total') control must be given to a relatively small party of intelligentsia, without which all organization and momentum in the revolution would be lost (it doesn't happen over night, btw). See the 'vanguard' concept.

Now what happened wuz, all the historical instances of revolution either stopped at this phase - their leaders declaring that the revolution had been achieved and wuz now over - or they transformed almost immediately into state capitalist systems. Hence the saying 'socialism cannot exist in a sea of capitalism'.

So when a Shawn Hannity or a Glenn Beck or a McCarthy are getting paid to sit in front of a camera and terrify you with stories of how horrible Marxism is, just remember that Marxism hasn't yet existed anywhere on earth in its final and theoretically mature form.

Or don't, and continue to buy their books.

That's all very well, P. But you did not say what the next phase is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's the prevalent oxymoron that permeates all western interpretations of Marxism (thanks to conservative propaganda).

What you are calling 'totalitarian' is in fact the manifestation of a transitional phase during a revolution; Leninists claim that central ('total') control must be given to a relatively small party of intelligentsia, without which all organization and momentum in the revolution would be lost (it doesn't happen over night, btw). See the 'vanguard' concept.

What I have tried to suggest, and where my own interest and thrust lies, is in trying to sift out the informing ideas from the statements that are made. And I refer to this thread and to the participants in it. There is more to be got, more to be learned, and more to understand by taking this approach since, as I think is obvious (and yet must be stated) we have so little that we can all agree on. We lack *agreements* in the larger sense.

When very general labels are used in the media-systems -- like Marxism when for example Critical Race Theory is criticized -- great emphasis is placed on the term itself when it is used as a bludgeon. Marxism, socialism, communism, social justice warriorism, etc. These are fighting words and they obviously take the place of sensible, articulate argumentation.

So unless one has actually examined 'Marxist philosophy' and especially Marxist praxis in some depth one cannot really know what one is critiquing. Yet when one does that one quickly and easily discovers that Marxist-Leninism has an extremely destructive underbelly. But that is really the purpose of a caustic praxis: to attack, to bring into doubt, to undermine certainty, to establish oppositional stances as necessary, good and inevitable. It excites youth, obviously, and gets them hyped-up for action.

I suppose that 90% of average people have not and will not take the time to learn about this and yet they will avail themselves of the use of *fighting words* as they try to articulate an oppositional position. But in this sense people are doing the best they can with what they have. But their lack of preparation works against them.

As far as 'conservative propaganda' and -- what is its opposite? -- 'progressive propaganda' there should be no doubt that both sides use these tools. How unfortunate this is. All that a thinking person, with the free time required in order to devote to serious study, can do is to try to clarify the issues that are being debated. It is a demanding and exhaustive undertaking.

I admit to smiling when you use the term 'transitional phase'. If you can seriously put forward what genuinely seems absurd apologetics for what dedicated Marxists always end up achieving I might say that I admire your ability to self-deceive. But if I say this it does not mean that I think there is nothing to be admired in aspects of Marxian analysis. Isaiah Berlin did a very nice job of revealing aspects of Marx's genius (and that is a term that he used). So again it all requires a great deal of intellectual even-handedness so to be able to recognize the *positive* (an analysis of strict economic relationships):

The most enduring part of Berlin’s book is his approach to Marx and Marxism. His (Berlin's) reputation as a liberal democrat (and one distrustful of utopian ideologies) would lead many to expect a denunciation of Marx’s intellectual work. That never comes. Berlin concedes the intellectual brilliance and larger-than-life stature of his subject. It’s also clear that he finds in Marxism a useful framework for analyzing society, if not one for guiding socio-political change. Whether one finds Marx inspiring or monstrous, this is a useful contribution to the literature that should be eagerly read by students of philosophy, history, and politics for years to come.

In any case, what I most notice, and what I will continue to focus on, is the core and insurmountable differences between everyone who participates in this conversation. Even those who seem that they are *natural allies* in their tendentious, epic battles. My view is that the better one understands, as profoundly as one can, one's own position and how and why one wound up there, the easier it is to argue that position but also to see that one's opponent is also doing exactly the same thing. If no ground of any sort can be found then really & truly the structure of agreements will certainly collapse.

Or don't, and continue to buy their books.

Out of curiosity, a question. Have you ever bought and read the books written by those you consider to be your opposition? So for example I might ask if you have read Mark Levin's American Marxism. Or have you ever read or listened to James Lindsay's critiques of Critical Race Theory and its intellectual antecedents? (His website).

If you had some background in the arguments of your opposition it would, in my opinion, improve your own discourse tremendously.

So when a Shawn Hannity or a Glenn Beck or a McCarthy are getting paid to sit in front of a camera and terrify you with stories of how horrible Marxism is, just remember that Marxism hasn't yet existed anywhere on earth in its final and theoretically mature form.

So there's still hope, yes?

[Immanuel Can]

I love it when people trot this old saw out.
What's so funny about it is that they stopped reading too soon. Go back, and read the very next verse in the Bible, and then come and tell me that the disciples never got to see what it would be like when the Kingdom of God would come.
What's the next passage? The Transfiguration. Get it now?

I would never have believed that what Jesus reportedly said in the bible you would refer to as an "old saw"

Well, the "old saw" is obviously the error that people make, the same one you made. But I think you knew that.

What does that trans-figurative preview, shown only to three of his most trusted disciples, have to do with the promise of his eventual return!

It's a preview of Judgment. Jesus Christ promised "some" of his disciples they would "see" it before they died, and then he delivered on precisely that promise.

...the millennial old Osiris myth...

Another old saw. The Osiris (or Horus) allegation has been asked and answered. https://www.christianity.com/wiki/histo ... ology.html

Human-All-Too-Human.

...and when all else fails, quote Nietzsche.

Sorry, D. I shouldn't be so amused. It's just that what you're offering up are all the oldest, tiredest, most-often-answered objections that Atheists tend to trot out. Yet they've been asked-and-answered many, many times.

Might I suggest we could expedite this conversation if you paused to Google, just to find out whether or not a critique you're thinking of offering has, or has not, an answer already? That you can hit me with new and perhaps viable stuff, instead of just rolling out the old Atheist "softballs."

If you've got anything new, I want to hear it.

[henry quirk]

central ('total') control must be given to a relatively small party of intelligentsia

the finer clay?

no, nope, hell no...been there, are there...autistics & sociopaths, doofi & geeks, all

give 'em the Big Stick, they never give it up

to hell with that

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's all very well, P. But you did not say what the next phase is.

My theory? A critical theory of pet identity. Do you really think your dog is honestly a dog? Have you never observed your cat’s envy? All pets have fluid identity but they are so over-managed by their owners that they can’t really become what they are. We oppress them with our controlling definitionism. All because of bourgeois programming.

This must stop!

[henry quirk]

That's all very well, P. But you did not say what the next phase is.

My theory? A critical theory of pet identity. Do you really think your dog is honestly a dog? Have you never observed your cat’s envy? All pets have fluid identity but they are so over-managed by their owners that they can’t really become what they are. We oppress them with our controlling definitionism. All because of bourgeois programming.

This must stop!

and we sterilize 'em, deprive 'em of reproductive freedom: who are we to dictate to our four-legged brothers and sisters?

two-legged tyranny!

[Belinda]

That's all very well, P. But you did not say what the next phase is.

My theory? A critical theory of pet identity. Do you really think your dog is honestly a dog? Have you never observed your cat’s envy? All pets have fluid identity but they are so over-managed by their owners that they can’t really become what they are. We oppress them with our controlling definitionism. All because of bourgeois programming.

This must stop!

It's unlikely my dog identifies himself in language. My previous dog used to look at herself in a mirror which is about as far as a dog can stretch to a sense of essential self.

Men, it's most often alleged, are the only animals that can self-reflect, and thereby use their inborn faculty of reason.( I wonder if Alexis Jacobi regards reason as inferior to the sacre that enobles men's reasoning).

I am by nature and training inclined to let all creatures be what they seem to choose to be . Men are a lot more creative i.e. free than other animals and plants.

I am trained and educated as a Christian of a certain congregation, and I see no need to cast that experience off as it it were ignoble.As I have said, there are as many ways to approach the eternal absolute Self as there are people. However those ways that belittle or scorn the physical aspect of the universe lack the reverence for the whole Absolute which is physical, mental, and more that we can't know.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am trained and educated as a Christian of a certain congregation, and I see no need to cast that experience off as it it were ignoble.As I have said, there are as many ways to approach the eternal absolute Self as there are people. However those ways that belittle or scorn the physical aspect of the universe lack the reverence for the whole Absolute which is physical, mental, and more that we can't know.

[Despite humor, irony, some good-natured poking from time to time, and also what I don't or can't understand about anyone else, and so misinterpret, I respect your view, experience and orientation as I do all others. I hope this gets across ....]

[Belinda]

I am trained and educated as a Christian of a certain congregation, and I see no need to cast that experience off as it it were ignoble.As I have said, there are as many ways to approach the eternal absolute Self as there are people. However those ways that belittle or scorn the physical aspect of the universe lack the reverence for the whole Absolute which is physical, mental, and more that we can't know.

[Despite humor, irony, some good-natured poking from time to time, and also what I don't or can't understand about anyone else, and so misinterpret, I respect your view, experience and orientation as I do all others. I hope this gets across ....]

I was not criticising you.

I would actually like to know if you regard man's inherent reason as the approach to freedom and creation, or if you regard openness to the sacred in nature as the approach to freedom and creation. Perhaps you are not a determinist at all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I was not criticising you.

I was just being proactively cautious . . .

I would actually like to know if you regard man's inherent reason as the approach to freedom and creation, or if you regard openness to the sacred in nature as the approach to freedom and creation. Perhaps you are not a determinist at all.

I would answer by saying that it does not appear to me that *reason* per se can be relied on for everything. I do not know if *reason* leads to goodness. I guess that if Plato was reasonable, or his puppet Socrates, that reason does lead to conceptions of the good. But I do not know if the same occurs everywhere. There is some other agent that intervenes. What is it?

It seems to me that there is a connection between the 'spiritual life' (life of prayer) and the reasoning side -- in the best of circumstances. They function together. This is hard (maybe impossible) to explain to people of an atheistic bent. But I cannot imagine only relying on reasoning alone -- but that might be just in my own case.

[Dubious]

Re:

What does that trans-figurative preview, shown only to three of his most trusted disciples, have to do with the promise of his eventual return!

It's a preview of Judgment. Jesus Christ promised "some" of his disciples they would "see" it before they died, and then he delivered on precisely that promise.

That promise applied to all who accepted him as savior...not just to three of his disciples as a preview event. That's no way to gain converts!

Re:

...the millennial old Osiris myth...

Another old saw. The Osiris (or Horus) allegation has been asked and answered. https://www.christianity.com/wiki/histo ... ology.html

Considering the source being completely bible centric, I doubt not that for you it has been asked and answered many times, bible and confirmation as a pair orbiting each other forever held in place by mutual attraction! Any belief literally accepted destroys the ability to think critically...meaning it destroys the ability to think!

Re:

Human-All-Too-Human.

...and when all else fails, quote Nietzsche.
Sorry, D. I shouldn't be so amused. It's just that what you're offering up are all the oldest, tiredest, most-often-answered objections that Atheists tend to trot out.

I don't mind if you're amused. So have I been by you many times. Why do you think I so enjoy communicating with you!

To denote the real authorship and value of the bible, Human-all-too-Human should be its proper subtitle; likewise for the Koran. There were deep-thinking atheists long before Nietzsche, but based on his psychology and style, he is one of the moderns who epitomize it.

It's the symbolism of the Christ story which expresses meaning...not the quid pro quo you get out of it in you very literal interpretation...believe in Jesus and you're saved. There is no salvific mystery in a measure for measure business deal where those who can't or unable to pay get annulled at best or roast in hell forever.

As per Joseph Campbell...

“Wherever the poetry of myth is interpreted as biography, history, or science, it is killed. The living images become only remote facts of a distant time or sky. Furthermore, it is never difficult to demonstrate that as science and history mythology is absurd. When a civilization begins to reinterpret its mythology in this way, the life goes out of it, temples become museums, and the link between the two perspectives is dissolved. Such a blight has certainly descended on the Bible and on a great part of the Christian cult.

To bring the images back to life, one has to seek, not interesting applications to modern affairs, but illuminating hints from the inspired past. When these are found, vast areas of half-dead iconography disclose again their permanently human meaning.”
― Joseph Campbell, The Hero With a Thousand Faces

[Belinda]

I was not criticising you.

I was just being proactively cautious . . .

I would actually like to know if you regard man's inherent reason as the approach to freedom and creation, or if you regard openness to the sacred in nature as the approach to freedom and creation. Perhaps you are not a determinist at all.

I would answer by saying that it does not appear to me that *reason* per se can be relied on for everything. I do not know if *reason* leads to goodness. I guess that if Plato was reasonable, or his puppet Socrates, that reason does lead to conceptions of the good. But I do not know if the same occurs everywhere. There is some other agent that intervenes. What is it?

It seems to me that there is a connection between the 'spiritual life' (life of prayer) and the reasoning side -- in the best of circumstances. They function together. This is hard (maybe impossible) to explain to people of an atheistic bent. But I cannot imagine only relying on reasoning alone -- but that might be just in my own case.

The " other agent that intervenes" is the physical which may be contrasted with intellectual reason. The physical body is the receptor of the sacred which is most available to us in wild nature or in sexual communion .This is the Romantic view of the Eternal and Absolute.

I have no idea what you mean by "the life of prayer" except insofar as you say atheists would not understand. I don't even know what you mean by "atheists". What I mean by 'atheists' is they are people whose prayers are more creative and free than the prayers of many religious believers.