Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

A reverential attitude toward the ‘higher domains’ as expressed in the Ordinary of the Mass.

Catholicism.

A seriousness toward the full depth of life but essentially life as an existential problem that requires serious attention.

The Existentialists

A reverence for the feminine and the female potential and a exhalation of the potential communion of man and woman in marriage. (Evident strongly through Maria as symbol).

Catholic Feminism

The doctrines of the sacredness of the human person as person.

John Locke

Enabling the creation of or the amplification of or the discovery of personality.

Sentence fragment.

Christian focus on education. For example the founding of the oldest European universities.

Circular definition: you can't use "Christian" to define "Christian."

Scattered, incoherent, and devoid of even a smidgen of actual doctrine. It's as if AJ thinks no "Christian" ever thinks about Jesus Christ, salvation, the gospel or the Bible at all. Astounding oversights, one would have to say.

[Harry Baird]

Harry, everyone’s waiting.

Oh boy. Pressure's on.

Get some caffeine into you!

I'm on my second can. We'll see how that works out...

[Harry Baird]

To further understand Weaver we would have to firmly grasp that he is a Platonist and so if there are first principles that he recognizes and subscribes to, and this is certainly the case, and if you yourself wished to understand why and how he recognizes them as such (and as logical irreducibles) you need look no further than the sort of proofs offered in Platonic dialogues. So here is an example of a set of Platonic proofs for the immortality of the soul:

Plato's 19 Proofs of the Immortality of the Human Soul

Here, you seem to be suggesting that one of RW's first principles is, per Plato's arguments, the immortality of the soul. He certainly does seem to believe this to be true. We now have two potential first principles according to RW. What else is there?

If ever you did choose to examine Weaver's other work -- and especially for example his exposition on rhetoric -- you would see that he deals pretty exclusively in Platonic terms of understanding.

The Phaedrus and the Nature of Rhetoric

See the pages included there from Language is Sermonic and The Phaedrus and the Nature of Rhetoric.

Right now I don't have the patience, and shouldn't anyway spare the time to read through that, but I'll leave it open in a browser tab and we'll see what happens...

There must be some other first principle(s) on which these are based, unless they are "arbitrary" in a cultural sense as RW defines that term: being of "a proposition behind which there stands no prior".

I am uncertain if the core ideas, or the first principles, brought to the logical fore in Plato's arguments should be classed as 'arbitrary'.

The word choice "arbitrary" is RW's, but he seems to apply it to the case of the propositions of culture rather than of metaphysics. The interesting thing for me though is that the way he defines it (as quoted above) is similar to the general definition of a first principle. Maybe, then, he distinguishes between metaphysical first principles which he sees as objectively/universally true, and cultural first principles which he sees as subjective/relative truths, in the sense that different cultures with different cultural first principles are possible and valid.

The problem then would be how to distinguish between these types of first principle in reading his ideas.

But isn't that the real issue here? How is truth defined?

I generally subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth. If a proposition corresponds with reality, then it is true.

And is it possible to say anything that is truthful?

On a correspondence theory of truth: yes.

Behind that question is, of course, the larger question: are transcendentals real or 'invented'? The nominalists say, as I assume you know, that they are 'arbitrary' (or in any case they began an idea movement that made such assertions). So when Weaver speaks of a deal made with the *witches* on the *heath* and asks us to consider how it has come about that transcendentals were -- what is the right word? -- undermined, invalidated? Well right there you see very clearly what ultimately concerns Weaver.

Honestly, I'm not convinced that nominalism is the problem that RW makes it out to be. I see the nominalism versus realism debate as peripheral. How much difference does it really make whether we consider universal statements to be based on some "perfect form" in the Platonic realm or simply as a way of picking out (naming) particulars in the world?

[Harry Baird]

As it is an unplanned, spontaneous creation, I think readers should be free to take from it that which they like. What resonates with me in my own creation is *the real possibility that behind Reality is a dark, horrifying secret which only a few know, and guard closely from being more widely known. It is a possibility that has come up in my own anomalous psychospiritual experiences.

*Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.

Ye blind idiot, ye noxious Azathoth shal arise from ye middle of ye World where all is Chaos & Destruction where He hath bubbl'd and blasphem'd at Ye centre which is of All Things, which is to say Infinity....

There you go! And so, it seems that others have these dark thoughts too. I quite like the alliteration and effect of "blasphemes and bubbles".

By the way, your play or drama:

Thank you, hq.

[Harry Baird]

We have discovered that the constants of the universe are finely-tuned for life. Our parallel discovery of the mind-boggling complexity of life - including the cell, an exquisitely self-organising factory - has neutered the possibility of its having a natural origin. Both the universe and the life within it are screaming at us, "This was by design!"

A design implies a designer. The designer is plausibly a Divine one. At the least, that cannot be ruled out.

It is plausible that a Divine designer might enter into the designed reality as a human avatar. At the least, that cannot be ruled out.

Arguably, then, the modern perspective has even increased the plausibility of Divinity incarnating into the world. In any case, it certainly hasn't ruled it out.

By the way, I'm not necessarily endorsing the notion as you worded it (I mean the sentence with lots of first letters capitalised).

Most of us here are aware of the arguments that arise when examining the cell that state that this is 'mathematically impossible' that such complexity could have arisen on its own (naturally). So, design is implied and necessary. Yet in fact there is no phenomena that could be referred to that is not, ultimately, impossible.

So it seems to me that what is impossibly miraculous is existence itself. That anything exists and that existence must be -- can only be! -- eternal. Where does existence exist? The more that one meditates on the idea, the more it boggles the mind. How could any of it have come about? And how could any of it not be?

I very much resonate with that wonder at the existence of existence: why or how it is that anything exists at all. I have felt this way as far back as I can remember, although as time has passed, I have thought about it less.

Nevertheless (and I'm not saying that this is what you are arguing) the apparent impossibility of existence is not an argument against inferring a designer from evidence of design in any particular instance of reality. We wouldn't, for example, upon encountering a downed alien craft, declare: "Well, it looks designed, but since reality itself is impossible, we cannot infer an alien designer - because the impossibility of reality is compatible with the impossibility of an object reeking of design to actually be undesigned."

If you are really going to launch into the ideas revolving around the possibility of God, and if you will propose that an avatar of God enters into the created world, and in this specific case our own earth, then what you are doing is opening up the possibilities of such goings-on in any conceivable form. If you began with one fantastic notion (a singular event of God and avatar descending into the world) then you must accept that God as avatar will descend similarly, routinely if you will, into all possible worlds.

I think that this is fair to the extent that if Divine Incarnation could happen on our planet, then it could happen elsewhere - sure.

But here is the odd fact. No matter how fantastic one's 'dreams' and 'visions' become . . . the substratum-world remains exactly the same. It is not a place of ultimate possibility but a place of absolute constraint. Except insofar as creative ideas enter our world (of restraint and limitation) and enable what perhaps I can refer to as 'greater mastery' of material processes. Kind of the Promethean model, no?

I tentatively and provisionally accept that, except to note that the constraint of this world is not "absolute".

In what other human domains do these 'transcendental' ideas have effect?

Philosophy forums.

[Harry Baird]

Harry

I can go along with all of that to an extent. I get the whole "slave to sin" idea, leading to the need for help from above. I'd have to see how you resolved the contradictions in the standard Story before becoming more enthusiastic though. For example, in my view, the possibility of eternal torment in hell is incompatible with the standard Christian version of God, being all-good (such that He wouldn't want that fate for anybody), all-knowing (such that He would know if such a place existed and anybody was in it), and all-powerful (such that He could prevent anybody from going to such a place, and eliminate such a place from existence). I can see two ways to resolve this incompatibility: reject the idea of hell, or modify the standard conception of God. How about you? Which option do you take?

ETA: And, by the way, what do you see as the nature of Christ's sacrifice? Who was it to?

You must remember that I don't regard the devolution of Christianity into man made Christendom as a legitimate expression of Christianity.

I'm not sure how to interpret that, but it seems that you are saying that contradictions such as that between a tri-omni God and an eternal hell are attributable to Christendom and not Christianity, and thus that you take one of the two options I suggested above (it's not clear which one). It seems to follow from that, given that both the tri-omni God and eternal hell are Biblically sound precepts, that you do not consider the Bible to be authoritative or at least altogether correct.

Am I understanding rightly?

For example:

In Simone Weil's life, religion played a dominant role in the years following the mystical epiphanies she experienced in 1938. Long before, however, her wish to partake in the suffering of the distressed led her to a life-style of extreme austerity. It was under these circumstances that, in 1937, Simone Weil became increasingly attracted to Christianity, a religion she considered to be in its true essence a religion of slaves, and therefore in utter contradiction to the actual form it had taken in history. On this assumption, Simone Weil objected against Catholicism -- the denomination she knew best and respected the most --[21] that it had ended by perverting itself for the sake of power. The historical "double stain" on the Church that Simone Weil denounces originates in the fact that Israel imposed on Christian believers the acceptance of the Old Testament and its almighty God, and that Rome chose Christianity as the religion of the Empire.[22] Despite its universal redemptive mission, the Church became from its very beginnings heir of Jewish nationalism and of the totalitarianism inherent in Imperial Rome. As the spiritual locus in which both traditions of power displaced the religion of powerless slaves, Christianity became the actual negation of its own foundational leitmotiv: the self-annulment of divine omnipotence by the godly act of kenosis or self-abasement.

This makes a lot of sense to me. The religion recognizing the human condition leading to slavery devolves for political reasons into a religion of power. God is beyond the limits of time and space. The universe or the body of God, exists within God. It is a necessity much like our body is necessary for you. It is maintained by two essential flows of energy or of being: involution or away from our source and evolution which is the return. Buddhism knows this great cycle as a kalpa.

Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

I think I understand what you (and Simone Weil) are getting at. A question arises for me though: is there any point to these involutions, evolutions, and kalpas? What meaning or purpose, if any, is behind it all?

For certain cosmic reasons the being of Man ended up in what we know of as the human condition. Without going into details, Jesus death was able to consciously experience all the horrors our species is capable of intensifying the division between Jesus lower and higher natures. This invited the third force of the Holy Spirit to reconcile it leading to the resurrection from a higher perspective and Jesus return home opening a path for those capable of following..

I think it's important that you do go into details, but of course the choice is yours.

When we see how quickly we lose conscious awareness if someone looks at us the wrong way it is obvious that Jesus sacrifice is impossible for us. But is it impossible for everyone? Are there some Christians in the world?

Do you mean, are there individuals in the world whose lower and higher natures have been reconciled by the Holy Spirit? If so: do you consider this to be something that an individual can wilfully pursue (and if so, how?) or is it a matter of Grace arbitrarily falling upon the individual?

[Harry Baird]

And when I say let's have it I mean them ideas.

I got my own sources and own ideas about Christianity (laid out at various places up-thread).

What I'd like to see are the ideas you value, the ones in that container.

A reverential attitude toward the ‘higher domains’ as expressed in the Ordinary of the Mass.

A seriousness toward the full depth of life but essentially life as an existential problem that requires serious attention.

A reverence for the feminine and the female potential and a exhalation of the potential communion of man and woman in marriage. (Evident strongly through Maria as symbol).

The doctrines of the sacredness of the human person as person. Enabling the creation of or the amplification of or the discovery of personality.

Christian focus on education. For example the founding of the oldest European universities.

Impossible! Managing to get AJ to actually share some meaningful details as to what he values in Christianity?! Just who is this henry quirk, and how did he accomplish such an heroic feat?!

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk quoted:

*Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.

Ye blind idiot, ye noxious Azathoth shal arise from ye middle of ye World where all is Chaos & Destruction where He hath bubbl'd and blasphem'd at Ye centre which is of All Things, which is to say Infinity....

Not only God but also human potential, can combat and win over noxious Azathoth. As Jesus said "Take up your sword and follow me".(Gospel of Luke)

[Immanuel Can]

As Jesus said "Take up your sword and follow me".(Gospel of Luke)

Ummm...no, no he didn't, actually.

It was "take up your cross and follow me." (Luke 9:23)

Quite a different proposition, that.

[Immanuel Can]

Impossible! Managing to get AJ to actually share some meaningful details as to what he values in Christianity?! Just who is this henry quirk, and how did he accomplish such an heroic feat?!

If he gets it to happen, he gets three cookies and a gold star.

It's easier to get blood out of a stone.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here, you seem to be suggesting that one of RW's first principles is, per Plato's arguments, the immortality of the soul. He certainly does seem to believe this to be true. We now have two potential first principles according to RW. What else is there?

So let me see if I've got this right: You actually want me to present to you each element in Richard Weaver's Platonic philosophic arrangement where a 'first principle' operates? You wish to rope me into what is your project since, as it seems, none of this is clear to you? And if I do this you will then say "That AJ! really a productive interlocutor!"

It is more or less the same when I am (er-hum) "asked" in demanding tones to present a list of valued elements of Christianity. It seems to me that you yourself (and yourselves) lack this elemental understanding. Am I to take it that if I write out a list, and if that list seems to you sufficiently convincing, that you will be satisfied?

I think that this is fair to the extent that if Divine Incarnation could happen on our planet, then it could happen elsewhere - sure.

It seems to me that you are not capturing the principle involved. The primary element or principle would be, and would necessarily be, that God incarnates into all worlds where there is conscious aware being. If it happened in this world (and the idea of such incarnation in Indian-Hindu metaphysics far antecedes the Christian idea) then it must occur in all worlds, if indeed it is a principle of the cosmic manifestation.

And if this *idea* or this fact is real (that God incarnates into the worlds of conscious beings) then it is not the exclusive property of Christianity. The notion of incarnation thus expresses a metaphysical pattern.

I very much resonate with that wonder at the existence of existence: why or how it is that anything exists at all. I have felt this way as far back as I can remember, although as time has passed, I have thought about it less.

My impression has been that the people or the culture that is most strongly influenced by that *wonder* as you say are those people and cultures of the Indian Subcontinent. They take elemental aspects of the world and sacralize them. For example dawn (Ushas) is seen as a divine occurrence: the moment, constantly reoccurring, where the world of existence is illuminated:

Ushas (Vedic Sanskrit: उषस् / uṣás) is a Vedic goddess of dawn in Hinduism. She repeatedly appears in the Rigvedic hymns, states David Kinsley, where she is "consistently identified with dawn, revealing herself with the daily coming of light to the world, driving away oppressive darkness, chasing away evil demons, rousing all life, setting all things in motion, sending everyone off to do their duties". She is the life of all living creatures, the impeller of action and breath, the foe of chaos and confusion, the auspicious arouser of cosmic and moral order called the Ṛta in Hinduism.

Rta is another:

In the Vedic religion, Ṛta (/ɹ̩tam/; Sanskrit ऋत ṛta "order, rule; truth; logos") is the principle of natural order which regulates and coordinates the operation of the universe and everything within it. In the hymns of the Vedas, Ṛta is described as that which is ultimately responsible for the proper functioning of the natural, moral and sacrificial orders. Conceptually, it is closely allied to the injunctions and ordinances thought to uphold it, collectively referred to as Dharma, and the action of the individual in relation to those ordinances, referred to as Karma – two terms which eventually eclipsed Ṛta in importance as signifying natural, religious and moral order in later Hinduism. Sanskrit scholar Maurice Bloomfield referred to Ṛta as "one of the most important religious conceptions of the Rigveda, going on to note that, "from the point of view of the history of religious ideas we may, in fact we must, begin the history of Hindu religion at least with the history of this conception".

Surya, Ratri, are other such 'elemental' symbols. (Sun, Night). So too is the very vault or dome of our planetary world which is seen as the 'sphere' where all that we are occurs. The pattern, that pattern, also has logically to exist in all domains: a space that is allowed for the awareness of conscious being to occur, to proceed.

And so too is the idea of Svarga Loka (Indraloka) -- that is the idea of a heaven-realm.

My view is that Christianity more or less borrows elemental ideas and incorporates them into itself. But the ideas already existed and are, at least in some senses, better expressed and more fully expressed by examining other systems.

Therefore I arrive at my own stance: I do not think that Christianity is empty of content in terms of meaningful symbols (and every aspect of Christianity is essentially a play of moving, interacting symbols), in fact I think it is quite the opposite. But there is one large difference: What those in the Occidental world have done with the elements that they worked with.

So what I try to do is to locate, examine and expand the metaphysical idea within the symbol, and also link it back to what it originally came from: a mode of perception through which the world was seen.

[bahman]

Wow, this is the longest thread I have ever seen in here. What are you discussing?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's easier to get blood out of a stone.

First, I do not profess to have all my ideas worked out. And all that I think, and all that I understand (uncomfortably for me) is in motion. I do not have a fixed stance. I have seen too often that a fixed idea has to be modified at a later point. It is not at all easy to carefully separate out what is of real and even eternal value in Christianity, and simultaneously to critique it and notice its destructive side, and to do this carefully, thoughtfully and fairly. On this forum, speaking generally, there are those with some sort of supportive relationship to *Christianity* and on the other side those whose desire is, it seems, to rip it to shreds and trample it under foot.

Now I have to make a reference to 'people like you'. You are a destructive agent. You do more harm to the project of preserving and representing what is positive in Christianity than you do any sort of good. People encounter you (your personality + your apology for a branch of Protestant Christianity) and what results from contact with you is detestation. You'd do well to devote some attention to that.

As I have said (and everyone you talk to says) you are fundamentally dishonest. But you are tremendously useful to me. In the sense that I have to carefully and thoughtfully and fairly condemn the extremely limited perspective of religious fanaticism that possesses you (and which is a strong element in Christianity -- the imperious element) while at the same time being careful not to fall in with those who only desire to tear down and tear apart.

What makes my own project difficult is that though I recognize important universal truths expressed through Christian symbols I am dedicatedly opposed to the modern forms of Christianity which, as it seems to me, inhibit free thought and open thought, especially a sort of self-reflection on the belief system itself. That is a Christian self-examination of Christianity. But people that I respect, people I have encountered in reading, do this and brilliantly. I have two favorites: Basil Willey and Christopher Dawson. Still I very clearly recognize that the *project* I am involved in is difficult and fraught. Especially where it connects with contemporary events.

What is interesting, from my perspective, is to compare you as an intellectual with those other intellectuals mentioned. There is no comparison! In fact you have no ideas at all. You have no real discourse. There is very little in all that you write that moves anyone or could move anyone. Now why is this?! I have mulled over this and what I come to is the realization that your religious fanaticism is something that possesses you intellectually. It actually inhibits you from being able to act as a free agent and as a productive agent in any sort of apologetic project. You are dead. Therefore all you can do, and all you should do is cut and paste Bible quotes with those annoying emoticons sprinkled throughout.

So what I lament is that from the 'stone' of yourself there is nothing at all even slightly resembling, much less acting as, 'living water' of the sort that could actually nourish. You blabber about 'being reborn from above' and crow about your achievement as a Christian, a restored and bountiful personality that could distribute spiritual bounty -- but what is demonstrated in your discourse?

That you are dead.

This is not a personal issue though! These are necessary statements and observations. They are not really about you. You represent a problem that has to be overcome. You as an evangelical are one (literally) among millions. You people move in the realm of ideas like a school of shiny fish. You all seem to face the same direction on cue. You say that you are different from the Benny Hinns and you indicate that Woe unto those! they will get their just desert in the afterworld also crowed about. Except that I view you as being deeply tied up in the same problem. A similar set of perceptual errors. It stems from how you see and represent yourself.

So what you produce, in me at least, is an aversion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wow, this is the longest thread I have ever seen in here. What are you discussing?

Contemporary trends in dessert preparation. In any case this has been my impression.

[Immanuel Can]

It's easier to get blood out of a stone.

First, I do not profess to have all my ideas worked out.

Yep. That's for certain. Or even your basic definition of your most essential term for your thesis.

There's lots of work to do there, for sure.

I have seen too often that a fixed idea has to be modified at a later point.

I
That's the millennial mental disease...the fear of taking a position, since something might come along in the next five minutes and change it. And it's why that generation has been so paralyzed and inept at analysis...they won't even take a stand, so nobody has anything upon which to build.

It is not at all easy to carefully separate out what is of real and even eternal value in Christianity, and simultaneously to critique it and notice its destructive side, and to do this carefully, thoughtfully and fairly.

The problem is much simpler: it's simply the problem of knowing what "Christian" even means. That has to be the first thing in your analysis. Without that, you've got nothing at all to "critique" or "notice." You won't even be able to find the object of your analysis.

Now I have to make a reference to 'people like you'.

No, you don't. You could stay on topic.

But you won't.

As I have said (and everyone you talk to says) you are fundamentally dishonest.

Hogwash. I tell you exactly the truth about this. And I'm not shy to tell you what I think. But it's irrelevant and ad hominem anyway -- you can't excuse the faults of your own thesis by excoriating those who point out its flaws.

But you are tremendously useful to me.

Would that I could say the same for your thesis. I find it devoid of content.

What makes my own project difficult is that though I recognize important universal truths expressed through Christian symbols I am dedicatedly opposed to the modern forms of Christianity...

You don't even know what it is you're talking about. You have no definition for it.

The only thing you're really in favour of, is your own right to talk aimlessly and without defining your terms.

This is not a personal issue though!

Yes, a cascade of ad hominem irrelevancies, followed by, "But I'm really just a loving, dispassionate observer..."

I'm not here to please you. I'm here to speak about the subject. And unlike you, I know what it actually is.