Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

AJ wrote: 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.

You will jump at any opportunity to apply some spurious label

So ironic...considering your love of ad hominems.

And, I note, no answer to the definitional problem of "Christian."

I hate to tell you this, but nobody's paying attention to you talking about things you don't even understand anymore.

[henry quirk]

Just who is this henry quirk, and how did he accomplish such an heroic feat?!

An atavist. Gumption.

-----

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

Seems to me: I done did it.

Pony over my re-ward.

I dunno...I don't see anything from him that suggests that he knows what a Christian is.

But if you are satisfied that you got him even to admit that much, then here are your cookies. I'm a man of my word.

I got him to do what the rest of you couldn't.

I earned them cookies & star.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alvin Plantinga

If anyone is interested.

[Harry Baird]

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!"

All I'm asking you to do is to back up your claim: namely, that the first principles to which RW refers but doesn't explicate are those of Platonism, and that people like you with the necessary background (as opposed to folk like me who lack it) are familiar with them. If you're familiar with them, then it should be easy enough for you to briefly list them, no? Isn't that a reasonable request?

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?

Again, all I'm (we're) asking you to do is to back up your claim: in this case, namely, that (despite your harsh critique of it) there is much of great value in Christianity. OK, so, what is it? That's a reasonable question, isn't it? [ETA: in case it's not clear, I understand that you have already attempted an answer, and I am not asking for more from you in this respect.]

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.

I don't see how that follows. Why, given a Divine Incarnation on our planet, must it then necessarily occur on other planets too?

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.

And what do you think that is?

[Harry Baird]

P.S. The references to Hindu concepts were interesting; I meant to include that in my response.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Isn't that a reasonable request?

It might be ‘reasonable’ if I were trying to convert or convince you. But that isn’t my role.

You ask of me something that you should invest your own time to get clear about. I have not myself made Richard Weaver’s Platonism a project of study.

Less ‘claim’ and more ‘sound supposition’.

Also I do not use energy drinks. And I only drink coffee in the AM.

What is your average? Five long posts per can? Have you ever downed three in a session?

[Harry Baird]

Isn't that a reasonable request?

It might be ‘reasonable’ if I were trying to convert or convince you. But that isn’t my role.

It's reasonable in the context of a discussion forum. Participants in discussions are generally expected to substantiate their claims if requested to.

I have not myself made Richard Weaver’s Platonism a project of study.

So, you, too, are one of RW's readers who is not familiar with the first principles to which he refers - lacking the assumed background understanding.

Also I do not use energy drinks. And I only drink coffee in the AM.

Relevance?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Again, all I'm (we're) asking you to do is to back up your claim: in this case, namely, that (despite your harsh critique of it) there is much of great value in Christianity. OK, so, what is it? That's a reasonable question, isn't it? [ETA: in case it's not clear, I understand that you have already attempted an answer, and I am not asking for more from you in this respect.]

Let me ask you this: I provided a short list to Henry, very much off the top of my head, because he seems to be sincerely ignorant about the nature of the contributions made by Christians and Christian thought.

And what did that get me? You read what I wrote. Do you have any comment? Henry got some virtual cookies and a gold star for his efforts! What did I get? Nothing!

But he did not at any level interact with the content he asked for. And you? Why don't you comment on what has been said?

The reason: You are not really interested. But you want me to effectively waste time creating a list for you to assess.

[Harry Baird]

And you? Why don't you comment on what has been said?

The reason: You are not really interested. But you want me to effectively waste time creating a list for you to assess.

The real reason: my response would have been mostly critical, and I thought it unfair to "punish" you for doing what I've been requesting you to do for so long.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: I have not myself made Richard Weaver’s Platonism a project of study.

So, you, too, are one of RW's readers who is not familiar with the first principles to which he refers - lacking the assumed background understanding.

No, that is not quite right. I have read a good deal of Plato and so it was not hard for me to understand, rather quickly, that he was dealing on first principles -- elemental ideas -- derived from Platonic method of inquiry.

I have not sat down and made a study of the direct correlation of Weaver's assertions and the specific first principles within Platonic thought. Thus it would take me time I do not want to invest in creating such a list.

This is a tiresome line of inquiry, Harry.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The real reason: my response would have been mostly critical, and I thought it unfair to "punish" you for doing what I've been requesting you to do for so long.

Who cares if you are critical or not?

[henry quirk]

he did not at any level interact with the content he asked for

I am, at my pace, in my way, one bit at a time.

Christ is a symbol invested with a wide range of meaning.

The Christ symbol, an amalgam of a number of disparate saviour/messiah figures, yeah? The meanings: everything from bulwark against darkness to apocalyptic catalyst or fulfillment, yeah? And the true man or higher man, yeah?

Is Christ central to your notion of Christianity, or is he merely one symbol among several? Mebbe He's the lynchpin, the symbolic connective tissue holdin' it all together? Remove him and what happens?

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: 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.

And what do you think that is?

I have supposed it is largely because Hebrew Christians first began to interact with the Greek cultural world. Christianity is really Greco-Christianity and the Greek mind is a pragmatic mind. Given all the other levels of achievement in mathematics, politics, literature, medicine and also architecture, a platform was already there on which to build. And what was built was Occidental civilization. So when the Christian form and its ideas was transferred or infused into the Occident it met people and a culture with a pragmatic, constructive bent.

[Harry Baird]

Who cares if you are critical or not?

I take that as an invitation to provide the critical response, so, here goes:

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.

While I think that the items in this list are indeed worth valuing, I don't see them as unique to or in the Christian tradition. For years, you have been asserting that Christianity is unique in being the tradition of most value, but there's nothing in this list to justify or at least explain that assertion. Almost any religious tradition will, in its rituals of worship, evince a reverential attitude towards the "higher domains"; will inculcate a seriousness toward the full depth of life; etc, etc.

[Alexis Jacobi]

While I think that the items in this list are indeed worth valuing, I don't see them as unique to or in the Christian tradition. For years, you have been asserting that Christianity is unique in being the tradition of most value, but there's nothing in this list to justify or at least explain that assertion. Almost any religious tradition will, in its rituals of worship, evince a reverential attitude towards the "higher domains"; will inculcate a seriousness toward the full depth of life; etc, etc.

I would not have said they were unique to the Christian tradition. The Occidental traditions focus in areas in which other religions and cultures do not focus or focus much less.

I have said or would have said that I feel that Christianity is uniquely rich and that because of the Hebrew contribution -- always very serious and concerned for things I would define as unique (when compared to other religious traditions, say for example the Hindu in which the individual as individual is not relevant). Its is a question of focus.

Almost any religious tradition will, in its rituals of worship, evince a reverential attitude towards the "higher domains"; will inculcate a seriousness toward the full depth of life; etc, etc.

Make some concrete references. What specific religions are you referring to here? It would be helpful if you'd refer to your reading on the topic.

Can you fill out what religious rituals you are thinking about when you say they "will inculcate a seriousness toward the full depth of life". What do you mean by 'depth of life' and what specific religon or tradition are you referring to where you see that honored?