Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 1:50 am
Strict binary divisions do not work in many situations.
And in some, like predications of existence, they're the
only thing that does work.
For the Bible, one is saved or one is not.
Salvation from what? To what? [/quote]
From sin, to God. It's right there in the text...you can't miss it, if you read it.
The idea of a 'world beyond' that is better and more real than this world, became untenable and indeed an unhealthy idea to hold to.
Well, that's Marx's old canard. But Marx was wildly wrong there. Quite the contrary: it's only the idea that the consequences of this world persist that makes sense of the present at all. I can easily prove that. And it's nearly a universal truism, as well, one of the few things that the Eastern and Western traditions tend to all agree on.
Whether or not I think it will change nothing. It will still be the same, either way.
Yes, I do understand how binary thought-systems function.[/quote]
It has nothing to do with binaries. It has to do with reality. Reality has been defined as, "The thing that pushes back against your wishes." That's a good insight -- there's something "out there" that thwarts our imaginings, that limits our ambitions and resists our projects.
That thing is reality.
For the Bible, one is saved or one is not.
Yes, but there are no other options available to you,
Why should one prefer the having of lots of "options" to the having of a direct "truth"?
That's especially a bizarre idea when the "options" in question are mutually contradictory; because not more than one of the contradictors options is even
capable of being right. And again, that's not binary; one might have a milllion options, and if they contradict one another, the one thing we know for sure is that 999,999 of them are bound to be wrong -- and that's true even if we don't know which if the options actually is the correct one. That's just a fact of logic.
IC: You'll have to say who you're talking about. I'm unfamiliar with the case you seem to have in mind.
An entire wave that moved through Europe between approximately 1880 and 1930 (to choose general dates).
Can you be more specific? Do you mean the
Fin De Siecle? Or were you thinking of the run-up to the First World War? But then, why include the Depression and not World War 2?
AJ: That is one aspect. But there is another and I think it has to do with what became necessary, within a post-Christian culture, for people interested in 'knowing themselves'.
IC: That's very easy to answer: they won't...To the degree that one loses association with God, one loses also awareness of oneself. And you can read about this in the current range of sociologists and psychologists who have remaked on the way the postmodern self is dissolving...from Walter Truett Anderson, to Anthony Giddens, to Zygmunt Bauman, to Kenneth Gergen, to Christopher Lasch, to Roger Lundin...they're all seeing the same thing: the secular self, long shored up on a sort of Cartesian view of the self, is now in rapid dissolution to what they call "the Protean self," which like the mythical character Proteus, assumes many forms and has none as its essential form.
...they're all seeing the same thing: the secular self
I am not advocating for a 'secular self'. I am speaking of the ways that the concept of divinity changed.
What does "secular" mean, if not "devoid of reference to divinity"? If it has another implication, can you say what you think it is?
When you use this term "God" you are referring to an abstraction.
I'm not, actually. I'm referrring to a literal Person...the
prototypical Person, in fact, from whom personhood itself derives. You seem to be referring to an abstraction...but that's not what I think of God.
And you also think that turning inward, and discovering the intimation of divinity on an inner plane, has no relationship with a personal revelation of God.
You'll have to show me where you think I said that. To my knowledge, I did not.
No, I would say the inward look can be helpful, since our own personhood is derived from God...but I would add that it's not enough.
...the God you describe is unreal. Un-transformative.
Heh.
Not the way He describes Himself. In fact, He's the only true "Transformer" of human nature. So if you have a problem with that idea, your problem is with Him, not me.
People veered away from those closed concepts...
Yes: the Bible talks about this:
"All of us, like sheep, have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way..." (Isaiah 53:6)
It says also,
"There is a way which seems right to a person, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:23)
As for Nietzsche, you can either believe him or not, depending on your inclination. He gives you no more than that to go on: he just declares, "God is dead," then does absolutely nothing to prove it. He offers no evidence, no logical syllogisms, no historical certification, or anything like that. He doesn't even try, because of his prior assumption that "God" is just a concept, not a reality. It's just another narrative, another way of "telling the story," but utterly devoid of justification. Nietzche's just taking his own assumptions for granted, and counting on the fact that you will too, if he doesn't expose them.
So he just goes on, instead, to show you all the things that follow logically IF you have already believed his first premise gratuitiously. He doesn't say, "I have to admit I have no evidence, so I offer none, and just give you a way it could be, if I'm right." He continues as if he's stated a certain fact. And those who follow him do so like lemmings, without thought or interrogation of Nietzsche's warrant. They're just so glad, maybe, to think they've found a way to banish God from the world that it doesn't suit them to investigate or even interrogate Nietzsche's essential premise.
But a critical mind requires more than that. And a critical mind soon discovers that Nietzsche is a toothless tiger...lots of growl, but no real bite if you don't cede to him his first, unsubstantiated premise.
When kids raised in strict Christian homes (I have known a few) break out of those constraints they often go ape-shit and wind up in bad places.
That can happen. Kids raised with any firm morals tend to do the same...at least for a time. You'll find the same in all traditional families, military families, or even normal Western families, except in those homes where permissiveness is so broad there's nothing to rebel against. (That's problematic in its own way: imagine being a teen, and having no way to claim one's own identity.) Its a natural inclination of teenagers to rebel against their parents, at least for some period, so as to claim their autonomy. In a way, it's a normal thing, even though it's a dangerous thing, as well. The alternative, of unthinking compliance, makes it necessary sometimes. One must claim one's autonomy in order to be able to decide where to devote it.
The differentiator is what one does once one has claimed one's autonomy.
AJ: So what happened is that through an abandonment of the Image, and the exploration on new roads and new avenues, which required a very different sort of God-figure.
IC: That's such an odd line.
Describe it as you wish to.
No, it's odd...regardless of pejoratives. It doesn't actually make sense, even on its own terms.
And to live here, on this plane, honestly and with integrity, requires a non-dual God-figure.
Actually, the opposite.
If "integrity" and "honesty" are objective and universally-good values, as you assume here, then only a singular God who also values honesty and integrity is "required."
If the object is to live authentically in this world,
I'm so amused by the word "authentically." It gets thrown around so loosely these days.
"Authentic" means,
1a : worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact
b : conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features
c : made or done the same way (Webster)
So to speak of an "authentic" person means to speak of somebody conforming to some pre-existing pattern, fact, or essence. But few people who use the word "authenticity" ever say authentic
to what.
So perhaps I can ask you: what pattern, original or fact is a "person" capable of being "authentic to"?
Of course, I have my own ideas about that, but I'm interested in yours.
Actually, it's even funnier than that...it's like saying, "The world requires a very different law of gravity..." Good luck calling for one. If we're talking about a reality, then you're going to get what's really there...not what you imagine you'd like in its place.
The reason you can make this ultra-silly statement is because you are trapped within your structured God-concept.[/quote]
Not at all.
As you can see, above, it's analytical in the word "authentic." My objection there is not just one that a secular person
could have, though it's certainly that -- no God belief need be involved -- but one that any
rational person should surely raise, anybody who understands simply that "authentic" always means "authentic to ______."
I do not deny (based on my observations) that one could return to the former concept. It could very well be the best choice for a soul who cannot handle freedom.
So simplistic.
Yes, yes...it would be one reason that a person could turn to God as a concept; he could be running away. Big deal. A man could turn to Atheism in exactly the same way; he could be running away from God, from moral responsibility, from his cosmic parent, like an overgrown teenager. But what do such characterizations actually show? Nothing, really.
The point is very simple: many highly intelligent and thoughtful persons have been Christians. So if it's possible for somebody to become one because he "cannot handle freedom," it's equally possible for a person to use his or her intellectual freedom to explore, find answers, and then choose to believe in God for rational reasons. That's certainly happened.
So the slander that all religions people are all just running away is only that -- a slander...and a rather shallow one, at that. Any fair scanning of history certainly dispells it.
P.S. -- Here we should pause. I offer you an option: is our discourse to go forward on the disagreeable
ad hominem note of you accusing me and other Christians of always being naive, being fools, fearing freedom, being binary, being locked in amber, and so on, or is it to go forward companionably, with the goal of mutually locating some further truth? I think we could decide now, and shape our discourse accordingly. I see lots of value in the latter, but little in the former.
But I leave the choice to you.
Don't you realise that even you, yes, even you can become God's little shoeshine boy just like me.