Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 7:44 pm
promethean75 wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 7:28 pm Since Jesus was not 'the son of god' or 'divine'...
You can tell Him that when you see Him.
Again and for the umpteenth time I remind you that Jesus is a historical and historic man whereas Jesus Christ is an important myth that inspires us to be faithful to God's moral code.

In the olden days when people learned history they learned myths usually heroic myths. Modern history separates myth from a more scientific approach to facts and evidence. Christianity has lost a great deal of its appeal because so many churchy people promote myth as if it were history.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:37 am Jesus is a historical and historic man whereas Jesus Christ is an important myth.
False dichotomy. "Christ" is a title: it means "Anointed One," and in Hebrew, "Messiah." You've begged the important question: to whom is that title rightly assigned?

The answer is, "Jesus." So you're talking about one Person, not two.

But I needn't argue the point with you, because you will find out. Be ready, when you do.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.
___________________________________________________

Just now Immanuel Can has, let us say, used the threat of Hell as a tool within his obvious and continuing apologetic project in which he attempts (I gather) to influence specific people to 'repent' as the classic Christian recommends.

His methods are crude, I admit this, and he achieves the opposite result he pretends to seek, but simultaneously I also notice that the hearers are also rather crude in their misconceptions. So curiously what one is left with, what one sees and notices, is a situation in which meaning, some core meanings, are not ever actually brought out into the light, and all participants therefore involve themselves in wasteful, obscuring bickering.

Everyone is holed-up in their smallish, private, adamantly defended redoubts and, par for the course, avoiding (as it seems to me) facing the 'core questions'. The furious negation of the *Christian perspective* which is, I admit, a rather simple story on the surface but which yet obscures many parabolic existential truths, is only matched by a similar interpretive recalcitrance in which extremely real existential truths are reduced to argumentative threats. "In just a short while you will face your Maker and it is more than likely, given your present attitude, that you will know Hell, not Heaven".

But here is the problem: no one understands what any of this means. Hell? Heaven? These are terms that have no meaning. Simply because they can only be conceived in earth-terms. They are rhetorical tropes that have to be broken into and broken down. So my perspective -- once again -- is to be forced to *linger* over the core elements that so easily get passed over with glib (and ignoring) dismissiveness.

Now, today, we are witnessing the super-strange completion of super-weird historical circles, are we not? There is a backdrop to the present conversation and it is the Crisis that certainly appears to be upon us. It is the same thing (though perhaps a different octave) but in a new time signature in a circular pattern.

You people had better eat some leprechaun's mushrooms under truly sacred & ritual conditions (as Dubious recommends) and get some danged clarity!
😂
A coupe of notes. I owe to Dubious a further exposition on Nietzsche's core anti-Semitism. Again, I do not mean that Nietzsche was a Jew-hater (Judenhasser) in any personal sense. And I do mean that everything that he said, thought, proposed, struggled with, intensely revolved around 'throwing off the Jewish yoke". (Which is why people so adamantly wish to *throw off the yoke* that IC imposes on them).

And the Jewish yoke, as everyone knows, is Christianity.

We will have to go into this more but trust me it is not an easy conversation to have. It has direct implication in the events of the day (and if you-plural do not see this I wonder what bloody planet you are living on!)

Secondly, I owe Immanuel Can some comments on his (seeming) superficial understanding of *the core meaning* in Hamlet.

Meantime, as our *clever hopes expire* and the *dishonest decade* raises itself up with violent teeth in the same habitual room where *Eros and of dust / beleaguered by negation and despair* rule, consider this poem:
September 1, 1939
WH Auden
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.
Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.
Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.
The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.
From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
"I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,"
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the deaf,
Who can speak for the dumb?
All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.
Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 3:06 pm Just now Immanuel Can has, let us say, used the threat of Hell
"Use"? "Threat"? :shock:

None of the above.

IC is simply telling you exactly what he believes is true, because it places people in a situation of serious jeopardy. IC has no power to arbitrate Heaven and Hell, I assure you, nor is he proposing to. But IC would be a bad person if he did not warn people judiciously of the perilousness of their situation, particularly when the gleefully indulge in irreverent and blasphemous characterizations of the Person who WILL judge.

So it's neither a "threat" nor a "using." It's a "telling" and a promise.

As the Bible itself says,

"...having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

You either believe that, or you do not. I do. If I do, I must tell people about what's coming. And if I did not warn them to prepare, I would be guilty of doing to them the most serious evil a person can ever do.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 11317
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 4:54 pm IC is simply telling you exactly what he believes is true, because it places people in a situation of serious jeopardy. IC has no power to arbitrate Heaven and Hell, I assure you, nor is he proposing to. But IC would be a bad person if he did not warn people judiciously of the perilousness of their situation, particularly when the gleefully indulge in irreverent and blasphemous characterizations of the Person who WILL judge.

So it's neither a "threat" nor a "using." It's a "telling" and a promise.

As the Bible itself says,

"...having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

You either believe that, or you do not. I do. If I do, I must tell people about what's coming. And if I did not warn them to prepare, I would be guilty of doing to them the most serious evil a person can ever do.
How is this conclusion not predicated entirely on the following...

1] that he has no capacity to demonstrate that his own "private and personal" rendition of the Christian God actually does in fact exist

2] that he either is or is not able to demonstrate that it is His God and his religion and not any of these -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups -- that reflect the one true path to immortality and salvation

3] that he has explored in depth the existential parameters of his own life and he is able to explain why his faith in the Christian God is not predicated on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein -- that religious faith is the embodiment of the particular life one lives -- but instead is derived from a truly rational and philosophical assessment of God and religion

4] that given the ghastly pain and suffering that God inflicts on mere mortals through natural disasters, medical afflictions, deadly viruses extinction events, etc., maybe God Himself belongs in Hell
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

All this, all this and much much more, I can explain. I have been and I will continue to shine the light 💡 of intellect into these question and they will seem to self-illuminate.

The picture, the depiction, is not the reality. The reality however calls forth a picture.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:15 pm How is this conclusion not predicated entirely on the following...
Conclusion? :shock:

There's no "conclusion."

I was merely quoting the actual words of Scripture. You are free to make your own "conclusion" from what it says....but there are no consequence-free decisions, in that regard.
Dubious
Posts: 4637
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 3:06 pm
You people had better eat some leprechaun's mushrooms under truly sacred & ritual conditions (as Dubious recommends) and get some danged clarity!
😂
A coupe of notes. I owe to Dubious a further exposition on Nietzsche's core anti-Semitism.

Nope! Not what I would recomend under whatever conditions!

Please save yourself the time! It's hard to expose what was never predicated.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

I cannot save myself from the trouble, Dubious, my object is to enter the trouble and resolve the pertinent questions. In this sense I am really out for my own advantage. “You-plural” are the problem to be solved. I mean of course the conflicts and misconceptions that (seem to) plague you.

I do not have to suffer the same fate.

And I’d not bring it up if it were not pertinent. It’s pertinent.
Dubious
Posts: 4637
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 7:57 pm I cannot save myself from the trouble, Dubious, my object is to enter the trouble and resolve the pertinent questions. In this sense I am really out for my own advantage. “You-plural” are the problem to be solved. I mean of course the conflicts and misconceptions that (seem to) plague you.

I do not have to suffer the same fate.

And I’d not bring it up if it were not pertinent. It’s pertinent.
If you want to resolve it for yourself, go for it. But note, that's in the singular not in the plural. Antisemitism - if that is what you still refer to, was never a dilemma for Nietzsche except living in the midst of those who were.

Purifying oneself from misconceptions can be a life-long endeavor especially when more flow in than flow out!
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 8:51 pmIf you want to resolve it for yourself, go for it. But note, that's in the singular not in the plural. Antisemitism - if that is what you still refer to, was never a dilemma for Nietzsche except living in the midst of those who were.
There are two terms that describe distinct things: one is anti-Semitism, a term so laden, so contaminated, that it has (in my opinion) become useless if not meaningless, and anti-Jewish or 'counter-Jewish' which, I think fairly, is a different thing.

But let me turn to one of Nietzsche's famous quotes and a good place to start:
This is precisely why the Jews are the most disastrous people in world history: they have left such a falsified humanity in their wake that even today Christians can think of themselves as anti-Jewish without understanding that they are the ultimate conclusion of Judaism.
If you pick apart this set of assertions I think that you will discover in it what I described earlier: the desire, the will, the project, of getting out from under that *disastrous history*. If one recognizes something that one labels 'falsified humanity' the hard statement itself indicates that one must oppose such falsifying.

I asserted previously that the anti-Jewish spirit in the pan-Germanic world has a relationship to a Germanic resistance to the 'otherworldly' imposition that was forced on the Northern tribes by Mediterranean Roman Catholicism, and that the will to throw off this yoke rose up decisively in the Germanic psyche and psychology.

I can think of no more thorough, more devastating, critique of 'the Jewish project' than that of the Nietzsche's devastating attack on Jewish, and thus Christian, morals. And at least as far as Nietzsche understood and stated it, Judaism and Christianity function within the same general system. I do recognize that the man Nietzsche had no specific antipathy to any specific Jew, and also that he wrote admiringly of Jewish survival tactics among many other Jewish traits, but the 'elephant in the room' is that he wrote essays that outline, in startling detail, why this 'disastrous' influence needed to be resisted. The force and power of his writing is undeniable.

What I notice is that there is not much of a way around the task of ridding oneself of this influence once the influence, and the origin of it, has been located. It then would become a question of degree or intensity of commitment. So in this sense Nietzsche was just one among many with a tie to this larger social and national endeavor.

Because I draw a distinction between anti-Semitism and the opposition to Jewish power (which I do not recognize as wrong or evil), I do not place them on the same plane. The more that I study, for example, the Nazi era and its many different attempts to either dismiss Christianity or to rework it, this element of *resisting a yoke* only becomes more plain. Christianity became a distinct problem for Germany (and the germanic world) because it was too Judaic. It became absurd that a Germanic people literally worshipped a Jewish representative of God incarnate. So there was an intense effort to try to find a way to make Jesus a Gentile. And to reverse the 'victim role' normally assigned to Jews in the diaspora.

When you say that it was "never a dilemma for Nietzsche except living in the midst of those who were" I think you are seeing with real blindness, if such a thing were possible and, indeed, it really is! It was all very much a dilemma for Nietzsche (the problem of an imposed ethic that had to be ripped off) and indeed he lived it out in the most intense manner. What he set in motion continues in motion.

What interests me in this quoted sentence is just that it purports to be *seeing* and truth-telling and yet it utterly contradicts a reality that, when examined without bias, is as plain and unavoidable as day. If you can be as blind in this context I wonder where else you (and all of us) can be blind through an effort of our will to *see things as we wish to* but differently from what they are.

Now the other part here -- this must be said -- is that no matter where you look today (and I suggest reading the comments section of many different venues will make this plain) both anti-Semitism and what some have called 'counter-Jew advocacy' are everywhere present. What is going one there do you think?

The other curious thing is that the Right -- take for example the French Right -- rallies itself together around Christian identity postures, but this identity is not, in fact, fervently religious, but social-political and also nationalistic.
Dubious
Posts: 4637
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

This is precisely why the Jews are the most disastrous people in world history: they have left such a falsified humanity in their wake that even today Christians can think of themselves as anti-Jewish without understanding that they are the ultimate conclusion of Judaism.
Before I respond I need to know how you're interpreting this statement. Are you saying there is something, though not overtly antisemitic, but anti-Jewish or anti-Judaic here? From your writing, I can't be sure so instead of arguing, I'm asking.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:18 amBefore I respond I need to know how you're interpreting this statement. Are you saying there is something, though not overtly antisemitic, but anti-Jewish or anti-Judaic here? From your writing, I can't be sure so instead of arguing, I'm asking.
Why is it that my interpretation of the sentence is necessary? The question -- it looks as if you are on the verge of considering it -- turns on both issues: anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism. It seems to me that you have an open field to speak about both.

I wrote:
I can think of no more thorough, more devastating, critique of 'the Jewish project' than that of the Nietzsche's devastating attack on Jewish, and thus Christian, morals. And at least as far as Nietzsche understood and stated it, Judaism and Christianity function within the same general system. I do recognize that the man Nietzsche had no specific antipathy to any specific Jew, and also that he wrote admiringly of Jewish survival tactics among many other Jewish traits, but the 'elephant in the room' is that he wrote essays that outline, in startling detail, why this 'disastrous' influence needed to be resisted. The force and power of his writing is undeniable.
What I notice is that there is not much of a way around the task of ridding oneself of this influence once the influence, and the origin of it, has been located. It then would become a question of degree or intensity of commitment. So in this sense Nietzsche was just one among many with a tie to this larger social and national endeavor.
Do you accept this analysis? And do you accept the general analysis in the full post?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 11317
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 7:12 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:15 pm How is this conclusion not predicated entirely on the following...

1] that he has no capacity to demonstrate that his own "private and personal" rendition of the Christian God actually does in fact exist

2] that he either is or is not able to demonstrate that it is His God and his religion and not any of these -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups -- that reflect the one true path to immortality and salvation

3] that he has explored in depth the existential parameters of his own life and he is able to explain why his faith in the Christian God is not predicated on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein -- that religious faith is the embodiment of the particular life one lives -- but instead is derived from a truly rational and philosophical assessment of God and religion

4] that given the ghastly pain and suffering that God inflicts on mere mortals through natural disasters, medical afflictions, deadly viruses extinction events, etc., maybe God Himself belongs in Hell
Conclusion? :shock:

There's no "conclusion."

I was merely quoting the actual words of Scripture. You are free to make your own "conclusion" from what it says....but there are no consequence-free decisions, in that regard.
I'm just allowing you yet again to bring that Scripture down to Earth...to explore it given the points I note above.

And to ask you to ask yourself why you studiously avoid going there.

My own speculation here revolves around the admittedly subjective "rooted-in-dasein" assumption that Christianity is merely the "transcending font" of choice for you. Rooted in dasein as well. An anchor for your Self allowing you to sustain the comfort and consolation that it brings you all the way to the grave. An anchor I wish I was able have again myself.

It's just that this being a philosophy forum, the manner in which we explore such things ought to reflect that.

And you and I have a different understanding of that.
Belinda
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:04 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:37 am Jesus is a historical and historic man whereas Jesus Christ is an important myth.
False dichotomy. "Christ" is a title: it means "Anointed One," and in Hebrew, "Messiah." You've begged the important question: to whom is that title rightly assigned?

The answer is, "Jesus." So you're talking about one Person, not two.

But I needn't argue the point with you, because you will find out. Be ready, when you do.
You avoid the important Christian belief that the myth of Christ involves God's intervention in history
Post Reply