Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Plato's escape was the theory of forms.

From Plato's Seventh Epistle:

But thus much I can certainly declare concerning all these writers, or prospective writers, who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study, whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries; it is impossible, in my judgement at least, that these men should understand anything about this subject. There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself.

Notwithstanding, of thus much I am certain, that the best statement of these doctrines in writing or in speech would be my own statement; and further, that if they should be badly stated in writing, it is I who would be the person most deeply pained. And if I had thought that these subjects ought to be fully stated in writing or in speech to the public, what nobler action could I have performed in my life than that of writing what is of great benefit to mankind and bringing forth to the light for all men the nature of reality? But were I to undertake this task it would not, as I think, prove a good thing for men, save for some few who are able to discover the truth themselves with but little instruction; for as to the rest, some it would most unseasonably fill with a mistaken contempt, and others with an overweening and empty aspiration, as though they had learnt some sublime mysteries.

In my view this is an important revelation about what Plato believed. True, it is entirely a mystical result that he proposed as possible. One could describe it as a 'sudden flash' which produces a shift or change. But the interesting part is that he suggests that it then 'nourishes itself'.

When I read what you write I recognize in you a man completely tied up in discursive ideas. That is what philosophy is, for you -- the handling of and the domination if ideas. Yet you are not an 'adept' and you are not, say, a disciple of wisdom, and you have not been interested in nor shall I say captured by interior processes ('leaping sparks') that influence you or determine different directions (than the purely discursive). In this sense, I would suggest, you'd not be able to understand a synthetic intellect like CG Jung's for example. I don't imagine you have much place at all for these realms of subjective experience. They fall outside of those realms that you seem to imagine that you dominate in one degree or other.

So what my suggestion has been is to see contemplative spirituality and monastic spirituality -- very real and important traditions within our own Occident -- more in the light suggested in the Seventh Epistle. Though I think it would be a struggle for you to gain any appreciation (or perhaps respect) for these modalities and traditions, yet if you were to do so you would I think better understand an important and influential trend not only in the Occident but as one modality that arises for man. The turn inward . . .

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I mean is that on this theme you seem to talk exclusively in generalities: about "certain truths" which lie behind Christian (and other religious) "Stories". What are those truths though? I understand that you are in movement in this respect and that you don't necessarily have anything definitive or immutable to say, but if the dialogue is to progress, then surely you can't be content with mere generalities, and ought to be interested in laying down some at least potential specifics?

In an earlier post I prompted you in a similar vein to share your list of positive affirmations about Christianity.

I have on past occasions over the years made similar prompts and even direct requests, always to be rebuffed. Perhaps this will be yet another occasion, but if so, I leave you with this thought: how, if not by getting into details, do you propose to progress the conversation you seem to want to have?

The way that I would begin to answer your question, though in some sense it might be halting and exploratory (because I do not have all my thought refined into quotable portions) is to stand back from the entirety of our Occidental intellectual traditions and to see the broad depth and height that these provide us. You are asking me for something like a short list, a reduced list, and I don't see the issue in this way. Your question cannot be simply answered as if giving you a parts list for a motor. And I regret that I cannot give you a better answer than the one I am attempting. What I have said though, I think, is part of a substantial answer. I have repeated what Harold Bloom said about Shakespeare: that he 'invented the human'. How did this come about? How is it that Shakespeare did this? And what exactly is 'this'? I have said that I believe the end result of spiritual and religious processes must be awareness. If honing awareness is not the core process I cannot imagine what else it should be. Where shall I direct you so that you can see and appreciate the enunciations of this depth and value? You do not read! But it is there, and perhaps also in music, that it can be found.

I have also employed an example, a reference-point. Just one that is true. But on fora like this one has to work with general ideas in the hope that one makes a strong point. I have referred to the Oxford Companion to Christian Thought.

Embracing the viewpoints of Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox thinkers, of conservatives, liberals, radicals, and agnostics, Christianity today is anything but monolithic or univocal. In The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, general editor Adrian Hastings has tried to capture a sense of the great diversity of opinion that swirls about under the heading of Christian thought. Indeed, the 260 contributors, who hail from twenty countries, represent as wide a range of perspectives as possible.Here is a comprehensive and authoritative (though not dogmatic) overview of the full spectrum of Christian thinking. Within its 600 alphabetically arranged entries, readers will find lengthy survey articles on the history of Christian thought, on national and regional traditions, and on various denominations, from Anglican to Unitarian. There is ample coverage of Eastern thought as well, examining the Christian tradition in China, Japan, India, and Africa. The contributors examine major theological topics such as resurrection, the Eucharist, and grace as well as controversial issues such as homosexuality and abortion. In addition, short entries illuminate symbols such as water and wine, and there are many profiles of leading theologians, of non-Christians who have deeply influenced Christian thinking, including Aristotle and Plato, and of literary figures such as Dante, Milton, and Tolstoy. Most articles end with a list of suggested readings and the book features a large number of cross-references.The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought is an indispensable guide to one of the central strands of Western culture.

Now I cannot provide you with the reduced and clipped list that you seem to want. And what I do instead is to refer you to resources.

What has impressed me, and indelibly and undeniably, is the wealth and depth of the general zone of Christian thought. It opens up into wide horizontal as well as vertical depths. I would say therefore that at its best, and among the best, Christian thought opens an individual to horizons of awareness.

I have on past occasions over the years made similar prompts and even direct requests, always to be rebuffed.

One thing you might consider is making even a small contribution to my Gufstream G550 fund. Don't be so damned cheap! Then the sqeuaky wheel might get some grease.

You do not like the answer that I do try to give because it demands of you that you do your own research. You do not have the will or the energy. What I hope that you will be able to do is to see that the idea that I try to present -- about value & meaning and how these are understood in our own traditions -- can only be grasped with a direct personal experience. You could read theology, ancient or modern, you could read through the Oxford Companion, you could read the thought of important intellectuals of the Christian tradition, you could also study Shakespeare as well as our own vast traditions of poetic writing. You would then gain a sense of the 'breadth' that I feel is the best aspect of the Christian traditions.

I assume that you do not recognize what I am talking about, Similarly a fish does not recognize the water he swims in. That *you* is plural and general. When we fall away from our own intellectual traditions we fall into a territory of nescience. That is my essential view.

You may notice that numerous of those who write on this thread are, largely, anti-Christian or perhaps counter-Christian. To make the defense that I am making here is not popular because, and when confronting jerks like Immanuel Can (dishonest and slippery) one is influenced to hate the Christian and to toss everything about Christianity down onto the ground. (Thanks for your productive work Immanuel! How proud you must feel!)

Very bad choice! We are parts-and-parcels of the wideness and depth that has been opened for us. I suggest focussing attention on that and better understanding it.

[Immanuel Can]

What I have to say for myself is that if I trawled patiently through this (or other) threads, I could easily find such an admission,

Let's see you do it, then. "Easily" shouldn't be a problem for you.

I offered you the opportunity to honestly admit that, yes, you do believe that all of the religions other than Christianity are wrong...

"Offered"? "Admit"? How kind of you. And "honestly," too? Well, I see you've secured the 'high ground' for yourself there.

Well, I'll take up your kind "offer," and answer anyway: go back two messages, and you'll find I've already answered this, and recently.

"Religions" contain a combination of truths and falsehoods, not falsehoods exclusively. Only that which conforms to the facts is truth.

And that should be obvious, for several reasons. One is that no lie or error is anything else but totally obvious, if it is composed of nothing but falsehoods; so it's exactly what we should anticipate. A second is, at I said earlier, that every "religion" or "philosophy" or "ideology" offers itself as truth. That's a universal. And every serious student of "religion" and all our social scientists today recognize the "incommensurability" (their word) of ideologies, especially the spectrum of them available in the West. Check it out. Thirdly, to "believe" is to "believe true." -- and if somebody does not believe his or her views are "true," then there's no sense in us saying that they "believe" it at all: one does not "believe" what one does not actually think is true.

So it's absurd that you attribute to me the suppostion that all "religions" are incapable of being true on any point. It's a straw man, and contrary to your confident claim, you will not find it "easy" to locate where I have said such a thing, or even implied it. But do carry on, if you feel inclined. I'll be interested to see what you "easily" pull up.

I personally like you and think that you're a good guy,

I used to think the same of you. It's why I supported your point in the first case, in addition to the fact that I thought you were right. Now, however, I'm not so sure. What I'm seeing looks an awful lot like misrepresentation, cavilling, and then sanctimony...and I'm at a loss to explain it. You were never like this before.

So what gives?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I personally like you and think that you're a good guy,

I used to think the same of you.

::: snif! sob!:::

C'mon fellas! I am beginning to tear up! Stop, please!

[Harry Baird]

HOW is it 'logically' possible that human beings can live without air or oxygen?

Oh. So, you don't understand logical possibility. It's a formal concept - do some research on it if you need to.

But there is absolutely NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe that could convince you of absolutely ANY thing, contrary to what you are currently BELIEVING is absolutely true.

That's quite a sweeping statement, but, yes, I did indicate in my initial response to you that I don't know how I could be convinced that some putative One Truth really is The One Truth, and that I only hold out hope for a revelation that contains within itself its own validation - whatever that might be. You tried to convince me of one possible means of validation: that everybody agrees on what the One Truth is. I've explained why that's not a satisfactory means of validation to me (because in a meaningful modal sense, it's possible that everybody is wrong).

Thanks for proposing your means of validation. It's not rigorous enough for me. Maybe it is for you or others. Cheers.

[Harry Baird]

See, you got right to the core of IC’s presentation and method. Curiously, none of this matters to him. He is fundamentally dishonest. And the other aspect is that his function, unconscious in my view, is to drive people away from an appreciation of Christianity. He has left a very bad taste in many mouths.

Yep. I'd seen it play out in reading fully through this thread, of course. Encountering it directly was the clincher though.

[Nick_A]

uwot

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 6:12 pm
...That is the secret of escaping the prison of Plato’s cave, the goal of philosophy...

Plato's escape was the theory of forms. It's often at this point where students of philosophy lose some enthusiasm for Plato. Whatever your personal goal for philosophy may be, if philosophy itself can be said to have a goal, or at least a function, it is to equip people with the tools to contextualise the phenomena they are presented with - to write stories that make sense of this crazy world.

No. escape from Plato's cave requires inwardly turning towards the light with the whole of oneself. It leads to freedom from the attachment to duality for the sake of experiencing the triune reality of our world. Knowledge of the forms indicates the direction leading to freedom but without inwardly turning toward the light a person just turns in circles

[Immanuel Can]

See, you got right to the core of IC’s presentation and method. Curiously, none of this matters to him. He is fundamentally dishonest. And the other aspect is that his function, unconscious in my view, is to drive people away from an appreciation of Christianity. He has left a very bad taste in many mouths.

Yep. I'd seen it play out in reading fully through this thread, of course. Encountering it directly was the clincher though.

Charming!

Such an allegation needs no refuting. I'll let you hold hands and sing.

[Harry Baird]

AJ. OK. Look: your bird's eye view seems to be that Earth is a realm which is, intrinsically - that is, in and of itself, and in and of its own nature - amoral if not immoral, and that God - whether as a literal agency or merely as the imagined agency enabled via the God-concept in the mind of man - imposes a (higher) morality onto this, by nature, amoral if not immoral realm.

Except I would extend it a bit further and say that all who examine 'the earth' and this vast, weird system, realize that it is amoral in the sense that we humans, the sole aware entities who cohabit the realm, define morality. So it is not that 'my view is' but rather something more solid: It must be understood that the Earth is like this.

The immorality that you refer to requires someone, some looker & seer, to have defined the earth as immoral! And when you do this, I think this is an important point, you show that you voluntarily operate with what I have called an 'imposing' ethics.

If I refer to a 'god-concept', which would seem to negate the possibility of a 'real god', I do so for clarity's sake. Because I believe that people more often than not employ the concept. We are conceiving and conceptual creatures.

In the light of my post to which you were responding, then, what you mean by "metaphysical truth" is "(a higher) morality" - roughly, the third of the possibilities which I put to you. So be it.

Any introduction of a morality that, as I have suggested, operates contrarily to the way the earth-system functions (dynamically amorally), must come from outside. That is, must enter as an 'imposition'. Obviously you cannot mediate the dynamic between lions and their prey and convince them that the dynamic they are trapped in is 'wrong' or 'evil'. But the man whose mother is prey to a lion, and the man who is prey to the return of his body, and perhaps all his conscious awareness, back into an ecological system at his death, that man may begin to balk at 'the nature of things'.

What I have also tried to do is to suggest how a picture of Satan is conceived. Satan is said to have 'free reign' in this realm. I also said that in the Christian concept it is man's action and man's fall that drags the cosmos down with him. And man's redemption, by a Redeemer, will return the world-system to a non-fallen and non-chaotic state. To understand the Christian concept one has to grasp these things. Now what exactly does Satan symbolize? What is he an emblem for? In my view for the intrinsic nature of the world! To be enticed or trapped by Satan is to fall into *the ways of the world*. Therefore the objective for a pious Christian is to avoid entanglement. To renounce the world in order to obtain and attain something higher.

Nevertheless, the possibility that you raise - that God is merely a concept imagined by mankind - fits the first category of metaphysical truth that I put to you - so don't think that you're getting away with anything, because I'm noting that.

First, it is obvious beyond any doubt that God for you and for many is indeed a 'concept'. Just examine how you use the concept. Just examine how the concept is used. You seem to be asking me if I assert that God is either 'real' or 'unreal'. But I will respond and say This is the core of your problem! You cannot make the distinction. And when I say *you* I also extend it to *many of us*.

So I have often said that God as a concept operates within man's conceptual world and in his imagination. Fact! But this does not even begin to touch on the issue of whether God is a real entity. I have only begun with preliminaries.

But I have also said that if we are to start with The Earth as a natural, material and biological system, that if a God is extrapolated from that world, and also from the vast, incomprehensible universe that we now lay our eyes on (really for the first time), that that God must be defined very very differently from the general image and concept of God that had been common. And I have suggested that if that God is defined it will be, as Hesse proposed, an Abraxian God. A God composed of evil and good. I have written that in the late 1800s the 'idea of God' began to shift. The former imago could no longer be sustained. One had to think about 'God' in a different way.

So you are not referring enough to a good deal of what I have stated and it is not fair of you to insinuate that I am avoiding questions!

It would have been helpful if you could have clarified this yourself, but no matter. Let's ignore in this post, then, metaphysical truths other than the moral.

It would be helpful as well if you would realize that you'll have to move more slowly through very complex ideas and to sort them out carefully and conscientiously.

Now, what is the upshot of your sentiments given this brief synopsis of them? I think that it is basically that either a very, very rigorous theodicy needs to be provided, and/or that a very rigorous proof of God as the moral being we envisage to Him to be is provided in the light of the empirical facts, and/or that we ask even harder questions about the basic grounding of reality at the deepest level: is the deepest level of reality moral, amoral, or immoral, and why does or does not that correspond with our level of reality, in the light of God, whether as an actual or conceptual Being?

Perhaps you need that theodicy in order to reconcile the former picture of God with the inevitable shift in how any 'God' would need to be conceived in order to square it with *reality*? Is that not more true?

I do not require a theodicy because I accept that, for whatever reason, I exist and am a part of a 'world' that is both good and bad, delightful and terrifying, effervescent with images and sensations of brightness and light, and also extremely horrifying with the rank smell of death.

If you wish to try to re-inflate an 'old concept' and try to propose an 'infinitely good God' that stands in opposition (in a Manichean sense!) to the Lord of this World -- have at it! But I will suggest that you will enmesh yourself in the old, insurmountable problem that such duality entails: a division within your own self.

or that we ask even harder questions about the basic grounding of reality at the deepest level

My assertion would be that we do not have a choice except to go with this one. Now, if you accept that this is what in fact happened within Occidental ideation (I refer to Freud, Jung, Lawrence and Reich as did Phillip Rieff who I have referred to) you will quickly see that theology turned inward. The idea of a God 'out there' could not be sustained. And if God were to be found he or it would have to be looked for in a different way. Therefore, the attention of leading men was drawn to other religious modalities, other metaphysical conceptual systems. The 'self' necessarily became the focus of attention and examination. Is this good or is it bad? Well, it is a mixed bag.

What I am doing is tracing-out what happened, and why it happened, and how all of this impinges on us today.

Now if you ask me Do you believe in God? I would answer that I have had a range of different experiences within the general conceptual order that I present to you here. But my 'picture' is not like the standard Christian picture! It is infinitely more nuanced. But if you were to push me to talk about this, surely and inevitably, it would move into descriptions of realms of subjective experience. This is my fate and, I suggest, this is our fate (in the old Indo-European sense of the word fatum).

If you had read carefully what I've written you'd understand better that I veer away from the 'imposed' system (Judean, Christian) and back toward older and I think in many sense truer views of *reality* and the nature of things.

How could I, and how could any of us, ultimately and definitively define God? Try to answer such a question yourself given your own position and orientation.

Again, AJ, you respond extensively, and I have my work cut out in crafting a sufficiently responsive yet also sufficiently brief reply. Here's my pointed (ha) attempt:

1. Re ("imposed") morality versus the "red in tooth and claw" Earth: yes, from a (my, at least) moral perspective, the ecology of this planet is far from morally ideal.
2. Following on: yes, I allow that, in the sense you intend, morality is (necessarily) an "imposition" upon that which is amoral (some ontological reality - in this case, planet Earth). I think I prefer a different word to "imposition" though - maybe something more like "overlay". I say this because "imposition" has connotations of *force*, which I don't think are appropriate, even though sometimes force *does* need to be used against immoral intransigents.
3. I understand and appreciate your thoughts on Satan as representative of the deviation of Earthly ecology from an ideal morality. In my own provisional dualistic outlook, I am more than sympathetic to a view that some evil entity had a role to play in the world as it is in that sense.
4. Re God as a concept: well, yes, obviously, as with any word, the word "God" and any given definition of it lies in the conceptual realm. The real question is whether or not any given conception of God corresponds to reality, or, at least, how well it corresponds to reality.
5. Re competing concepts of God as either manichaean (a wholly good God versus a wholly wicked counterpart - say, "Satan"), or as a Ground of Being emanating both good *and* evil - and everything in-between or alternative: sure, all of these can be laid out on the table, discussed, and evaluated as for which *does* correspond best to reality.
6. Re your subjective experiences affecting your conception of God: that's perfectly fine and reasonable, and I have desire to quibble over it.

[Harry Baird]

Now I cannot provide you with the reduced and clipped list that you seem to want. And what I do instead is to refer you to resources.

Yar, so, basically: rebuffed once again - and in a MOUNTAIN of words!

You do not like the answer that I do try to give because it demands of you that you do your own research.

No, I don't like the answer that you give because it's an evasion - even though you claim or at least imply that a responsive answer is possible.

Telling me to do my own work is weak sauce. You're making the claim (of the value underlying Christianity); it's on you back it up. Make more specific claims and I might research or evaluate them more carefully. You seem to want to have a conversation around all of this but how can we converse about it when all you ever offer are broad generalities?

[Harry Baird]

"Religions" contain a combination of truths and falsehoods

every "religion" or "philosophy" or "ideology" offers itself as truth.

Yep, so, basically, what Dubious said at the start.

[Harry Baird]

I personally like you and think that you're a good guy,

I used to think the same of you.

::: snif! sob!:::

C'mon fellas! I am beginning to tear up! Stop, please!

Aw. Buddy. No need to feel left out. You are loved and cherished more than you know.

[Harry Baird]

See, you got right to the core of IC’s presentation and method. Curiously, none of this matters to him. He is fundamentally dishonest. And the other aspect is that his function, unconscious in my view, is to drive people away from an appreciation of Christianity. He has left a very bad taste in many mouths.

Yep. I'd seen it play out in reading fully through this thread, of course. Encountering it directly was the clincher though.

Charming!

Such an allegation needs no refuting. I'll let you hold hands and sing.

First up: your dishonesty is very apparent. Any putative "need" for refuting that cannot be met other than (ironically!) dishonestly, so, in a way, I'm glad that you don't try to meet it.

Secondly, you seem to lack self-awareness in this respect, or at least are playing games in this respect.

But, thirdly, and much more kindly, I don't view you in purely negative terms. As I wrote earlier, I think that you have a strong intellect, that you're well read, and that when the circumstances are right, you are capable of mounting very strong rational arguments. Here are some examples of this kinder perspective from my private correspondences from early in the thread when I was privately sharing my thoughts on it:

I have just finished page 6/258. Sentiments so far: Immanuel Can is making a good showing, and I'm cheering him on to an extent (he is at least the most productive participant)

Other comments: IC has correctly and perceptively pointed out some inconsistencies in his opponents' positions (esp. those of RCSaunders, which echoed the reasons why I skipped some of that guy's (gal's?) posts). IC is no doubt a smart guy, and a good debater, even though, as you know, I don't agree with him about everything.

* Whether the universe's past could be infinite:

My reaction: Am fully on board with IC's arguments, although he might have misinterpreted his opponents somewhat.

And from my private notes, until now not shared with anybody:

== Disproving an eternal past ==

* Can Man's experiment is very good stuff: viewtopic.php?p=543206#p543206

Just wanted you to know that I'm not writing you off, man. You have plenty of good strengths and make plenty of valuable contributions.

[Harry Baird]

The Church of No One Truth (NOT): A Cautionary Tale

A Play of Three Acts of Three Scenes Each

<< Act one, scene two | Act two, scene one >>

Act one, scene three

Characters:

Bjorn aGus

Pastor Wiola

Setting:

Inside the Church of No One Truth (NOT)

Bjorn aGus: Pastor Wiola, a word if I may?

Pastor Wiola: On the hard wood again?

Bjorn aGus: If that's what it takes.

Pastor Wiola: Please, step back into my office.

(They remove to Pastor Wiola's office.)

Pastor Wiola: Now, parishioner Bjorn aGus, have you solved the puzzle? Have you reworded rewardingly?

Bjorn aGus: That's not what I'm here to discuss, Pastor Wiola. See, the thing is, I've been talking with the billboard heretic Can Man.

Pastor Wiola: Oh dear. Parishioner Bjorn aGus, are you aware of how dangerous that is? This is a man who believes.

Bjorn aGus: Yes, Pastor, I understand that. And I think that I can live with it. But what I can't live with is being the only member of your Church.

Pastor Wiola: Parishioner Bjorn aGus, what you need to understand is that we are ALL the only members of our OWN Churches. You were never really a member of mine - you were only playing at being one. All along, your Church was your own.

Bjorn aGus: Then I am free? You release me from your dogma?

Pastor Wiola: You were never bound by it in the first place.

Bjorn aGus: You don't mind me declaring the One Truth?

Pastor Wiola: No such thing, so if you want to declare nothing, then, please, feel free.

Bjorn aGus: I will not forget this liberating moment, Pastor Wiola - and, I hope, nor will you.

Pastor Wiola: There is nothing to forget. All is as it should be, and the One Truth remains hidde... uh, I mean, non-existent.

Bjorn aGus: Wait, what was that? Were you about to say "hidden"?

Pastor Wiola: Nono, just a silly slip of the tongue. Nothing to worry about.

Bjorn aGus: Pastor, level with me. Is there something you're trying to hide?

Pastor Wiola: Of course not, silly billy. Now run along.

Bjorn aGus: Uh, that's awfully patronising.

Pastor Wiola: Yes, yes, of course. I am so sorry. So many things on my mind. So many distractions. You are of course an adult who deserves full respect as such.

Bjorn aGus: (Suspiciously) If I'm an adult, then tell me what you're trying to hide.

Pastor Wiola: Hide? You think I'm trying to hide something? I think it's high time you left, parishioner Bjorn aGus.

(Bjorn aGus reluctantly leaves Pastor Wiola's office.)

<< Act one, scene two | Act two, scene one >>

[Immanuel Can]

"Religions" contain a combination of truths and falsehoods

every "religion" or "philosophy" or "ideology" offers itself as truth.

Yep, so, basically, what Dubious said at the start.

Not at all. Just because somebody "offers something AS truth" doesn't mean it IS truth. Those are separate questions.

Dube thinks truth can depend on consensus. It never does.