Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

What kind of ridiculous forum is this?

What is your interest in the topic of Christianity? Or religious metaphysics generally? What is the proper attitude of mind, according to you, that confronts nescience?

[Immanuel Can]

What kind of ridiculous forum is this?

Well, it's always interesting to me how these conversations go.

First, a whole bunch of people will tell you that morality has nothing to do with Christianity. Then they'll swear at you, and make obscene references, and then abuse you and insult you. Instead of dealing with whatever you say, they'll attempt to assault you verbally, and maybe to offend your basic sense of decency as well...and then they'll try to dismiss you entirely, as if whatever you say is simply beneath them, and you don't even count as a human being or a voice...and all the while, they'll also be reminding you that they just don't need Christianity in order to be "good people."

Not everybody will do that. But enough will that you can count on it.

And it makes you wonder...do they even hear themselves? Or have they just dropped the bar of "good" so low that they aren't even aware that their conversational conduct is contradicting the thesis they are at such pains to make you believe?

[Nick_A]

What kind of ridiculous forum is this?

Well, it's always interesting to me how these conversations go.

First, a whole bunch of people will tell you that morality has nothing to do with Christianity. Then they'll swear at you, and make obscene references, and then abuse you and insult you. Instead of dealing with whatever you say, they'll attempt to assault you verbally, and maybe to offend your basic sense of decency as well...and then they'll try to dismiss you entirely, as if whatever you say is simply beneath them, and you don't even count as a human being or a voice...and all the while, they'll also be reminding you that they just don't need Christianity in order to be "good people."

Not everybody will do that. But enough will that you can count on it.

And it makes you wonder...do they even hear themselves? Or have they just dropped the bar of "good" so low that they aren't even aware that their conversational conduct is contradicting the thesis they are at such pains to make you believe?

"The orgasm has replaced the Cross as the focus of longing and the image of fulfillment."
― Malcolm Muggeridge

People as a whole are unwilling to reason impartially. There have been close to 500 posts on the topic of Christianity. It is safe to say there has been no agreement. Contemplating which bitches are worth fucking seems to be the logical alternative to ignorance.

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you as nuts as he is?

If you would kindly avoid this sort of commentary and resume the conversation in which you also have a role it would, for this participant, be appreciated.

That seems a bit pompous given that your friend just introduced the topic of greasy buttfucking and your only response to that was to suggest he modify his use of the word fool.

[FlashDangerpants]

What kind of ridiculous forum is this?

What is your interest in the topic of Christianity? Or religious metaphysics generally? What is the proper attitude of mind, according to you, that confronts nescience?

Those are really matters probably best discussed in the relgious philosophy sub. Do this in the general sub and you should expect to be hijacked.

[Walker]

What kind of ridiculous forum is this?

Well, it's always interesting to me how these conversations go.

First, a whole bunch of people will tell you that morality has nothing to do with Christianity. Then they'll swear at you, and make obscene references, and then abuse you and insult you. Instead of dealing with whatever you say, they'll attempt to assault you verbally, and maybe to offend your basic sense of decency as well...and then they'll try to dismiss you entirely, as if whatever you say is simply beneath them, and you don't even count as a human being or a voice...and all the while, they'll also be reminding you that they just don't need Christianity in order to be "good people."

Not everybody will do that. But enough will that you can count on it.

And it makes you wonder...do they even hear themselves? Or have they just dropped the bar of "good" so low that they aren't even aware that their conversational conduct is contradicting the thesis they are at such pains to make you believe?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you as nuts as he is?

If you would kindly avoid this sort of commentary and resume the conversation in which you also have a role it would, for this participant, be appreciated.

That seems a bit pompous given that your friend just introduced the topic of greasy buttfucking and your only response to that was to suggest he modify his use of the word fool.

“Chillum has no friends” (Salaam Bombay).

Best to skip over the recent unpleasantries and try, if possible, to continue to move forward in a relatively interesting conversation. It seems to have captured people’s interest and attention.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What kind of ridiculous forum is this?

What is your interest in the topic of Christianity? Or religious metaphysics generally? What is the proper attitude of mind, according to you, that confronts nescience?

Those are really matters probably best discussed in the relgious philosophy sub. Do this in the general sub and you should expect to be hijacked.

I never object to hijacking or odd diversions. But even still it is good to try to get back to the conversation.

[attofishpi]

What is your interest in the topic of Christianity? Or religious metaphysics generally? What is the proper attitude of mind, according to you, that confronts nescience?

Those are really matters probably best discussed in the relgious philosophy sub. Do this in the general sub and you should expect to be hijacked.

I never object to hijacking or odd diversions. But even still it is good to try to get back to the conversation.

With regards to having a thread in the "Religion" area - forget about it! That sub area is swamped with atheist or the wackjob ilk, spamming threads for their desire for attention with subjects that are pure idiocy. (some theists also post crap there) - so any thread wortth an actual discussion soon gets thrown down into the abyss!!

AJ. You once told me you have gnosis - not that necessarily means to are gnostic - but I did ask you to explain a little of this gnosis, would you mind doing so now?

[Harry Baird]

AJ, it's good to hear from you. I had wondered whether you had abandoned us...

After what seemed an eternity of endless rain it finally has become more summerlike so I have been bikepacking.

I actually suspected as much, and am glad to find that that is the case. Happy travels, I hope.

My response is to be rather nonplussed. "Foolish" or "nescient" - it really doesn't make much difference to me, but I think I prefer "foolish". It's more to the point and understandable in the modern world.

I maintain that the proper terms are crucial. Fool and foolish are not specific enough and so they are merely insulting. To assert that someone is nescient requires that their lack of knowledge and understanding be corrected.

Hmm. I'm not convinced of the distinction you're making. Surely, a fool's lack of knowledge and understanding should be corrected too, if possible? But perhaps you are suggesting that "fool" connotes a state of being the lack of knowledge and understanding of which is innately incorrectable? That is, "fools be fools, and that's that".

So if a picture of the world is painted that is as physicalist pictures necessarily are, totally determined, then the consequences of this view also becomes a necessary ethical admonition. It therefore becomes possible, and also necessary, to reduce men to determined and controlled beings. It really does mean to enslave them.

So if what I say is true, then all focus must be placed on examining the mechanisms of that control. If you teach that everything in our world is determined, and that it is right and good that we imitate that described and perceived world, then whether you know it or not you are helping to construct a world where a power-principle can determine you.

In a sense, I agree with you. Adopting a necessitarian outlook is a type of enslavement. In another sense, I think it's kind of irrelevant: none of these guys actually act as though they are enslaved, and all of them act as though they were free, which, of course, is inevitable, because we are free (but see the caveat immediately below).

While it does seem quite true that we do live in a determined world and that determined forces operate all around us, and we are (as I say) subsumed into that sort of world, what distinguishes us is that we have something like a *spark* of freedom. We may indeed be largely determined, or more determined than we want to admit (or can clearly see), but if we philosophically relinquish our understanding of the degree that we do have freedom and free-will, then we have really done a disservice.

I agree. There are all sorts of forces which limit our freedom, but we retain that *spark*.

Now, we could arrive at that perspective ad hoc and to a degree thoughtlessly and perhaps merely as a sort of 'mood', or we could actually try to convince people that we really are determined beings and that free will, and even *higher dimensions of consciousness* are simply false states of mind. I do suggest that if we do that we are beginning to engage in evil ideation. And I do not use the word 'evil' lightly or irresponsibly.

For folk like BigMike, the project is very, very real, and yet oh so ironic: people must be freely convinced that they are not free. I am amenable to your view that this is evil ideation.

So the fact of the matter is that the term nescience is actually far more useful because it locates the issue in a lack of understanding and that is to say a defect of personality, of intellectuality, of reasoning I'd say, and possibly in a psychological defect.

OK. I see where you're coming from.

But here one has to be quite careful because, and this is true, many people are in a state of reaction against systems-of-control which have, in fact, abused their power. Therefore, we encounter another aspect of nescience: people who are deeply involved in (in this case) religious systems that do not actually liberate but inhibit or block the sort of growth that could lead to (whatever we mean when we use the term) freedom.

Yep. Definitely. Religion so often functions as a system of control rather than liberation, and it's totally understandable why free-thinking individuals would reject that.

This is I think what I most learned though my months-long interaction with Immanuel Can. He purports to be on the side and the team involved in 'liberation' (attaining true freedom) but is deeply involved, without seeing it, in the opposite. (This is my opinion and I do not ask that anyone else agree with me).

I can see it both ways. On the one hand, IC's definition of and engagement with Christianity is essential: that is to say that, he takes Christianity to be - well, the teachings of Christ. I mean, what else? This is a perfectly reasonable approach.

The "other way" of seeing it though is this: we don't really know what Christ's teachings were, because most of them were written down at least decades after they were uttered. Nor does the mainstream Christian story make sense. It contains all too many contradictions and absurdities.

So, what are we to make of this situation?

Clearly, Christ was a powerful individual of spiritual authority, whose teachings genuinely were spiritually uplifting - but how do we know what they actually were, and why, if he genuinely was "the Son of God", did God not preserve them more rigorously?

So the issue, the core issue, turns back to What is freedom? What does it mean and what can it mean to be a free human being? But then too: What is the object of consciousness? or its purpose? Why bother, say, even to posit freedom, or increasing awareness and consciousness, when it might be *better* to inculcate exactly the opposite: to allow oneself to become even more subsumed into those determining systems (political, economic, whatever) which operate all around us?

So the way I look at things it is reasonable, if done responsibly, to undermine the Church's power and hold on people. I can see why that might be necessary (and I often think of Lacewing's choices in this regard: to escape from the clutches of her youth-church that acted like the Reverend Gregorious in Hjalmar Soderberg's novel Doctor Glas). In any case we must come to fairly and accurately and also compassionately understand why it is that many people have felt this need to become free of.

Again, I am sympathetic to these sentiments. Insofar as religion operates (merely) as a system of social control, it is responsible to undermine it.

But none of this changes the core and never-diminishing problem: we still have to define this world and we still have to define not only existence but the reason and purpose of existing. This question will never go away. It has been and it will always be the core and basic (human and also conscious) question.

Yes. And the answer depends very much on one's metaphysical outlook. If one believes that all of one's decisions are necessitated, then one's answer will be diminished. The real challenge is for those of us who recognise the reality of freedom. What is its purpose? What are we supposed to do with it? My provisional answer is that freedom is its own end: that it is its own joy, via the opportunities that it provides, that we are responsible for maintaining.

For these reasons then I propose nescience and nescient as proper and useful terms. But I will not say to those who seem to me to be on the nescient side that every aspect of their perspective is wrong. This is why I say it requires tremendous care to sort through the positions that operate in our present. The more knowledge, the more rounded (and fair) one's perspectives.

That is fair. I have been a little more gung-ho, because, as I've mentioned, I have seen this type before, and it has no redeeming features.

[Harry Baird]

Objectively. He is psychotic.

Objectively, you don't have the first clue as to what psychosis is. If you're a psychiatrist, then you badly, badly need to go back to school. Redo your degree, because you have a total misunderstanding.

And if you're not a psychiatrist, then you don't have any basis at all for diagnosing random strangers on the internet.

Either way, you're - yep, you guessed it - a fool (OK, OK, AJ: nescient).

Furthermore, to "explain" the comments that have provoked so much outrage: yes, they were totally obscene and very over the top, but think about what this asshole is saying to me. Essentially, he's saying, "You should be locked up and treated against your will, because your behaviour meets the criteria of social deviance." In other words, the assertion "You are psychotic" is an implicit threat. He got what was coming to him. No regrets.

[Immanuel Can]

Hilarious.

And true.

[Harry Baird]

...

[Harry Baird]

...

[Harry Baird]

And it makes you wonder...do they even hear themselves?

Yeah, I hear it. I don't deny that it's ugly, but, for personal reasons, it's necessary.