Christianity

[henry quirk]

Henry was right.

It happens from time to time.

[Dubious]

There was something deeply new about Christianity and this is one of the reasons it had the reach and power it did.

I'd like to know what that "deeply new" would consist of or at least some idea. The only thing I can see that's deeply new is that all the prerequisite divinity in god creation was invested in an actual historical person, i.e., someone of that description thereby enhancing its credibility among believers...but there may be something else I haven't or should have considered without knowing what!

If I asked you to define what you mean by 'spirituality' I have a paranoid sense that you'd avoid answering.

This sounds like a direct challenge by employing reverse psychology which usually works without assuming it can actually be defined. Why must it be so? Don't dictionaries have enough of them? If a definition were insisted on for me it resembles a dreamlike influx of an anti-gravitational force lifting one's default mental plateaus into far higher regions like standing at the base of a mountain and feeling transported to its summit. At its most intense, spirituality is experienced as a hyper compression of time in which all questions in that moment cease, becoming silent and superfluous...the mental compression of time limiting all such limitations.

Poetically, since you occasionally quote poetry, it may be hyperbolized as follows, poetry usually being one BIG lie...

...when the ineffable perpends our senses then
and time reaps granite in the hearts of men
then death shall die and spirit reign
destroyed on earth yet home again
unperplexed before the sibyl's shrine
of echo-less silence and resound-less time.

Then rise all thought and urge your rays
alert the spirit to compel its ways
until that self, wreathed in fire like a comet sent
wanders shadowless, an omen in the firmament.

Philosophy can never become as encompassing as a 'lived religion'.

Of course not! Religion is for the gullible obeying the rules of their masters whereas philosophy remains a discussion, an inquiry into things independent of any assumed reality status...a universal religion where any salvation offered resides in thought alone upon whose base religion itself is dependent upon.

[Nick_A]

Bahman wrote: "There is no such thing as objective conscience."

That explains a lot. If true then by definition man and his interpretations must be the measure of all things.

The interpretations that man makes lead to applications of the measure. What you wish to assert is that there is an 'objective morality' that is pre-inscribed into the soul of man. That is what you mean when you say *conscience*.

You say: "The problem is that the human condition prevents one from experiencing their conscience".

The way I try to describe something similar is to refer to *metaphysics* -- ideas that already exist or that exist as part-and-parcel of the entire created manifestation. In our own traditions however there are 2 different means by which they become known. Consider Plato's means as one -- arrived at through rational consideration. The other pole is that of Hebrew revelation which came into that world as a series of commands. If the commands were disobeyed the angry God would, and did (in the stories) punish the disobedient.

But no matter what pole one subscribes to it is man who has the responsibility of interpreting.

Man's first mistake He takes it upon himself to "interpret" objective conscience and creates subjective morality. If mankind as a whole REMEMBERED objective conscience rather than trying to interpret it to serve political and pragmatic concerns, everything would be different. But we cannot so live and die by conflicting interpretations.

Does objective conscience require a personal God or can it be the result of the necessity for the universal living machine or the body of God? Can a person remember it?

But it is not just Christianity that has developed, articulated and strict moral and ethical systems. So it becomes rather impossible to say that those other peoples (who have developed moral and ethical systems) are not responding to conscience (as you put it).

Conscience, like the forms, always existed. Morals always change while conscience remains constant as do the forms. If true, how much faith do you put in moral and ethical systems?

Lacking objective conscience the only alternative is the defense of subjective morality and all the conflicts arising from it.

Moral systems, even if they come through revelation (as the Hebrew) still have to be worked out through a system of defined laws and guidelines. Those applications of law are always done by groups and they must arrive at consensus. The way that they arrive at consensus, and this is definitely true of the Hebrew sages, is through long back-and-forth conversations where the final determinations (of what should be law) are worked out.

Christianity could not exist and the need for meaning would be replaced by man made Christendom and its many interpretations.

The issue is not only (as you say) that "the problem is that the human condition prevents one from experiencing their conscience" but that people do not agree that there is, as you say, an 'objective source' (a God who sets down absolute rules and laws) that must be obeyed (or there will be consequences and punishments). Even if some people still hold to the general belief that there is a God they do not necessarily believe in all the elements of the moral and ethical codes.

Under the circumstance I can see why you must reject objective conscience. Opening to its potential invites contemplation of the purpose and potential for Christianity.

But it is not just Christianity that has developed, articulated and strict moral and ethical systems. So it becomes rather impossible to say that those other peoples (who have developed moral and ethical systems) are not responding to conscience (as you put it).

It is likely that Bahman (and many others who write here) do indeed reject the entire notion of 'objective morality' though. They must necessarily believe that these moral and ethical systems are made by man -- in just the same way that man invented the most basic tools, and then more and more complex tools.

This, in a nutshell, expresses the way they see things.

[Nick_A]

Bahman wrote: "There is no such thing as objective conscience."


That explains a lot. If true then by definition man and his interpretations must be the measure of all things.

Of course it's true, or at least true for "man". If you happen to be a swamp frog, then I suppose the swamp frog is the measure of all things. This is not rocket science, Nick.

A caterpillar does not know why it is compelled to create a cocoon and become what it was destined to be. Perhaps it is the same with Man who is attracted to higher form of life but unable to do so. Which Man is the measure of all things: Man as we are on earth or his conscious potential which the great ways point us to?

[Immanuel Can]

I agree Xianity...

No.

Marxism.

Look.

I support the right of workers to a fair share of profits.

Not the point.

If you think Communism will tive "workers" a "fair share," just look. Look at what has been done in every single case ever. Were the workers in the USSR or Maoist China better off than free workers in the USA?

Just look. Communism has NEVER delivered ANY of the goods it promised, nor has it EVER created a workers' utopia. Ever. Anywhere. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If you want to live in a hellish mess of economic failure, human rights disasters and moral decay, Communism's your door. It's what it has always reliably delivered.

[Harbal]

A caterpillar does not know why it is compelled to create a cocoon and become what it was destined to be. Perhaps it is the same with Man who is attracted to higher form of life but unable to do so. Which Man is the measure of all things: Man as we are on earth or his conscious potential which the great ways point us to?

I don't know what the "gret ways" are, and just because some of us have a feeling that there is a higher form of life for us to achieve doesn't mean that there is. If we can figure out the best way to live our lives between being born and dying without hurting or taking anything away from each other, that is probably the best we can hope for, because there is nothing to indicate there is anything more than that.

[Belinda]

I agree Xianity...

No.

Marxism.

Look.

I support the right of workers to a fair share of profits.

Not the point.

If you think Communism will tive "workers" a "fair share," just look. Look at what has been done in every single case ever. Were the workers in the USSR or Maoist China better off than free workers in the USA?

Just look. Communism has NEVER delivered ANY of the goods it promised, nor has it EVER created a workers' utopia. Ever. Anywhere. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If you want to live in a hellish mess of economic failure, human rights disasters and moral decay, Communism's your door. It's what it has always reliably delivered.

Marxism is not that sort of Communism that ignores all traditions and claims there is nothing but the mode of production. Marxists say the basic need of people, and what people in societies basically do, is deal with the natural environment so it feeds and shelters people. Stalin dispensed with individuality but Marx did not. As you know perfectly well there are extreme right wing regimes such as Taliban, and Nazism, that also forbid rights of individuals.

[Harbal]

A caterpillar does not know why it is compelled to create a cocoon and become what it was destined to be. Perhaps it is the same with Man who is attracted to higher form of life but unable to do so. Which Man is the measure of all things: Man as we are on earth or his conscious potential which the great ways point us to?

I don't know what the "great ways" are, and just because some of us have a feeling that there is a higher form of life for us to achieve doesn't mean that there is. If we can figure out the best way to live our lives between being born and dying without hurting or taking anything away from each other, that is probably the best we can hope for, because there is nothing to indicate there is anything more than that.

[Belinda]

A caterpillar does not know why it is compelled to create a cocoon and become what it was destined to be. Perhaps it is the same with Man who is attracted to higher form of life but unable to do so. Which Man is the measure of all things: Man as we are on earth or his conscious potential which the great ways point us to?

I don't know what the "great ways" are, and just because some of us have a feeling that there is a higher form of life for us to achieve doesn't mean that there is. If we can figure out the best way to live our lives between being born and dying without hurting or taking anything away from each other, that is probably the best we can hope for, because there is nothing to indicate there is anything more than that.

I guess Nick claims to know in some detail what the great ways are in a supernatural("higher") form of existence. You yourself have just indicated what one of the great ways is but you do it as a humanist not as a supernaturalist.

Although I prefer your humanist to Nick's supernatural stance, Nick does point to a philosophically interesting difference between humans and caterpillars. A man does plan for the future which caterpillars don't do or need to do, and a man looks to his past and regrets the dreariness of it.

[Harbal]

I guess Nick claims to know in some detail what the great ways are in a supernatural("higher") form of existence. You yourself have just indicated what one of the great ways is but you do it as a humanist not as a supernaturalist.

Although I prefer your humanist to Nick's supernatural stance, Nick does point to a philosophically interesting difference between humans and caterpillars. A man does plan for the future which caterpillars don't do or need to do, and a man looks to his past and regrets the dreariness of it.

I could never figure out what Nick means when he goes on about his higher level of existence. He is usually too preoccupied with railing against "the Beast", and trying to shame us with irony, to go into detail. Does he know what he means, do you think?

[henry quirk]

I agree Xianity...

No.

Marxism.

Look.

I support the right of workers to a fair share of profits.

Not the point.

If you think Communism will tive "workers" a "fair share," just look. Look at what has been done in every single case ever. Were the workers in the USSR or Maoist China better off than free workers in the USA?

Just look. Communism has NEVER delivered ANY of the goods it promised, nor has it EVER created a workers' utopia. Ever. Anywhere. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If you want to live in a hellish mess of economic failure, human rights disasters and moral decay, Communism's your door. It's what it has always reliably delivered.

Folks on our side (non-commies) need to stop defaultin' to the horrors of communism as the reason to avoid it. The implication is: if communism worked then it would be A-Okay.

Communism could be the most successful means around and I'd still oppose it. It casts me in a role I'm not meant to play (as cog) and that, itself, is all I need to say hell no!.

A well-tended to slave is still a slave.

[promethean75]

6ojybj.jpg

[henry quirk]

Oh, I know what you meant, Karl.

An acquaintance of mine, by way of his science fiction, has this to say about what you meant...


The Equality Concord and its dozen worlds share the dubious distinction of being the galaxy’s only genuinely functional, non-corrupt, decent-standard-of-living-enabled, etc., communist state.

(As opposed to genuinely non-functional communist states, like the former People’s State of Bantral.)

That’s because the Concord’s founders recognized the fundamental problem of Real True Communism requiring a whole set of instincts and drives and incentives and desires that are not commonly found among sophonts as nature made them. So they studied the gentle art of sophotechnology, and they built themselves some nice bionic implants to fix that problem, and create the perfect collectivist people for their perfect collectivist utopia. And then, and this is the important bit, they avoided the classic trap by applying the implants to themselves before applying them to anyone else.

It works. It may not be the most innovative of regimes, or the wealthiest, or up there on whatever other metric you choose to apply, but it does work, and self-perpetuates quite nicely.

Pity about that whole “free will” thing, but you can’t make an omelette, right?

External-policy-wise, it’s quite active both in a missionary sense (for itself) and in general do-goodery to burnish its galactopolitical image. (Both of these tend to work mostly on the desperate of one kind or another; the mainstream still thinks they’re creepy as hell.)

They do have a strong defensive military, but avoid using it in most offensive roles – probably because its collective intelligence knows that if there was even a slight suggestion that they were expanding by forcible implantation, they’d be on the wrong end of a multilateral fleet before you could say hegemonizing swarm.

[Immanuel Can]

Marxism is not that sort of Communism that ignores all traditions and claims there is nothing but the mode of production.

Quite right. Neo-Marxism doesn't even speak of class.

There are new Marxisms today, each of which criticizes something different...race, sex, transing, fat, disability... Same absolute rot, but in a different bottle each time.

But there is no type of Marxism that has ever failed to produce misery and failure.

Look.

[Immanuel Can]

Folks on our side (non-commies) need to stop defaultin' to the horrors of communism as the reason to avoid it. The implication is: if communism worked then it would be A-Okay.

I don't think it's "defaulting."

Marxism's own claim is that it will produce the worker's paradise, in one form or another. But that claim is an empirical one. It can be tested. Since Marxism has been tried many times, by millions of people, in diverse countries, in diverse models, it's quite important to point out that its failure record is 100%.

But yes, it's still slavery. That's another of its problems. And it has many more. Another would be its total ignorance of human nature, of economics, and of social dynamics. Then there would be its foolish focus on one primary axis of critique in every case...that, too is a weakness of the theory. Then there is its naivete, its absurd historicism -- which has already proved to be totally false, even by Neo-Marxist account, and the fact that it's a lazy idea, and its association with violence as an instrument of coercion, and its utility to despots, as we have seen over and over again...

How many failures must we list?