Christianity

[attofishpi]

well gary i think being angry at god is childish. think about this: if there wuz a god, why, necessarily, would it 'owe' you, us, anything? the emotion of anger is built on the supposition that one is being betrayed by god and here's why. its anthropocentrically built into our reasoning to presume god, being the creator of intelligence, would also be intelligent and able to understand why and how a human being perceives the world as a theodicist would.

it's that fact that god must know how we feel about the deal, and so we reason that the evil in the world is necessary in some mysterious way, or it isn't and god is betraying us by creating a world like this and putting us in it.

that's the origin place of that childishness. that feeling of betrayal. there's a meekness in it.

i think... ah, that's what it is. this attitude toward god - and it is prevalent in atheism - is the better of the options available. one either feels angry at god and submits or doesn't submit and risks losing one's soul (which the atheist isn't sure doesn't exist).

it's a helluva pickle, gary. my solution involves a different understanding of 'god' such that 'anger' toward 'god' ends up being a meaningless confusion... a result of a misunderstanding of the nature of gawd, who is utterly without reservation and completely indifferent to everything. as such it should neither concern me what gawd is doing, and in my indifference to him i am incapable of being 'angry' at him.

it's the metaphysics of minding your own business, gary. MOMYOB. i don't fuck with him and he don't fuck with me. we have adequate aprior knowlege of each other but that's it. that's as far as it goes.

Gazza!! Listen to the above, there is some great wisdom right there from prom!

I shall add as someone that has pushed and almost broken off God's buttons, that yeah, being angry with God is going to make you DEPRESSED.

I'll just open up and say it. If I call God & Christ every m'f**ker name under the Son, well, within a few mins I am in a bad place...this could last for days, the depression. And I real eyes I gotta apologise. "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - err...sorry for calling you <insert disgusting expletives>..."

GUESS WHAT? - within a few minutes (of saying a prayer apology) - all that dull dark depression is lifted, vanquished....and I am a happy little chap again.

So the best advice is - don't be blaming God for this beautiful world and cosmos, its just a spiral in the wrong direction. Wo/Men are fucking stupid - blame them if anyone, but best try no to B_LAME - make some changes.

[Belinda]

"Do you ever get angry from thinking that someone/something has created a crappy situation for you? Is it childish when you do it?"

it usta not be childish when i wuzzint a philosopher, but when i became one and discovered that there is no freewill, i became a stoic and like the great master Spinoza, no longer wished to scorn, belittle or rebuke any sonsabitches that might get me into some shit. for all things in nature proceed with a certain necessity and order, even the sonsabitches.

I agree, and I also think there is little significant difference between Spinoza's deity and that of those theists whose deity is goodness, truth, and beauty.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I simply decline to comment on what appears to me fictional, sumthin' you made up. Best I can tell: there is no religious-tyrannic underpinning to Evangelical Christianity. There are certainties there, some perhaps rigid or even petrified, but no leashes. Not a soul is held against his will. Now, I'm perfectly willin' to accept I may be wrong, that my eleutheromania immunizes me from, or blinds me to, some truly corrosive elements in evangelical thinkin'. You, however, haven't offered anything to open my eyes or even have me think they're closed. Your observations aren't convincing.

There is, and beyond doubt, an intense "religious-tyrannic underpinning to Evangelical Christianity" and it operates strictly in the idea-realm. I cannot see how you imagine that I've made it up. In fact it has nothing to do with me or my interpretations. Evangelical Christianity, of the sort that IC is deeply involved in and committed to, is an extension of Hebrew self-assertion through the mouthpiece of Yahweh -- a 'voice' handled by a priest-class for purposes which can, and should be identified. Simply put, once a people declares themselves especially selected by god, especially chosen, and declares that anyone who opposes that declaration is evil and the principle enemy, what extends from that is chemically pure religious tyranny.

If you or anyone declares it as a *certainty* that their god, or their god-concept, is the real and true one and all others are false (which includes either directly or indirectly the connotation that other god-concepts are evil) then you have established absolute battle-lines within the ideational realm and these rapidly show themselves as being tyrannical. When such assertions become rigid and petrified it creates (to use your term) idea-leashes which are just as real as any physical leash -- in effect. In fact it could be argued that the original leash is in the idea-realm and that the physical leash is an extension of the idea-leash.

I cannot therefore understand how your eleuthero fixation (to make free, to unbind) ("and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free) would not extend into the realm of ideas. How could such a fixation function as a immunization?

Not a soul is held against his will.

Idea-tyranny operates at the level of the soul or the mind if you wish. One's own will becomes the means by which control is achieved. And the implication is that one needs to become free of that domination.

Curiously, it is Nietzsche himself who pointed out that when the admonition to 'seek the truth' was followed in earnest that what truth-seekers discovered is that the truth they were believing as being true was not in fact the real truth. So by their own efforts they undermined the truth-claims and were then left in a difficult position. That is, ultimately, what led to the 'erasing of the horizon' (the erasing of entire sets of constructs which could no longer be taken as real and as factual).

There are certainties there. . .

What do you think are the chiefest certainties within Evangelical Christianity and referring, as directly as possible, to the core assertions of our own Immanuel Can?

[promethean75]

regarding evangelism u gotta categorize the types and analyze them individually. for example the individual evangelist such as IC or some friend or a guy on the street, etc., are usually good willed and feel it is their duty to 'spread the werd' to others and all that. sure, u might experience a little 'higher than thou' attitude from them but that comes with the territory; they believe, afterall, that they are messengers of god, and that's perceived as a noble and distinguished task. all that aside, the individual christian is innocuous at worst and quite well mannered and pleasant at best. I've hung out with by-the-book christians and as long as complicated philosophical discussions don't happen, you'd not know they were the type of people to believe such craziness.

the next type is the evangelical organization like the church. as a business it's perfectly legal. and its effects don't usually force or extend themselves onto individuals in society. u can choose to acknowledge and join a church, but we ain't forcin ya. so this is perfectly legit but a little more sketchy than the former type because of the organization's power to attract more people.

the worst is the political evangelism. that's the stuff that has real effects on millions of people. this pro-life nonsense on the right is such an abberation of religious influence on those with political power... those who vote our laws into laws.

u can separate church from state in theory but not in the heads of those conservatives in congress. reckon a christian man is a christian before'n he's a politician mm-hm. 

Anyway u know how u can tell whether or not a semiotic phenomena has any real force or effect in the psyches of those that carry the meme?

See if it has been parodied well in that society. If it has, it's a 'monster made into a pet' to paraphrase Derrida, and is no longer a substantial threat. Except for the third serious type obviously, the political evangelism. Shit the whole middle east is a perfect instance of it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do not look to members of organized religion, or their followers, for solace or guidance. They are brainwashed liars, hypocrites, and deep down they know it. Over the course of thousands of years, they have honed the skill of offering explanations that don't really explain anything at all.

Then the implication is still open to considering those of *unorganized religion*?

It is not hard for moderns like us to examine the structures of the traditional religions, in their historical forms, and to see that they functioned as extensions of cultural governance. And it is possible to see all of that in the harshest light.

Instead, you should look for the truth; the kind of truth that cannot be refuted in any way. The scientific consensus.

The problem is that -- if what you say is true -- that any sense of what is true or important in our life, in life itself in the widest sense -- is undermined. The truths in the physical and biological world (scientific consensus) indicate that a power-system requires no moral justification. What becomes powerful in nature dominates and there is not a question as to whether it is right or wrong. Right and wrong are moral questions and they pertain to a non-scientific world of imposed values.

True, there are true things about material facts (the temperature water boils and all the laws of nature) but these are not truths in the largest sense (what truth has come to mean). A human world governed by science-truths -- I mean if this were really enacted -- would I think result in a world dominated by force and power. However, I am open to hearing a counter-argument as perhaps there is something I am not seeing.

An English mathematician and philosopher named William Kingdon Clifford said we should only believe things with enough proof to back them up. "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to ignore evidence that is relevant to his beliefs, or to dismiss relevant evidence in a facile way," he said.

The first truth, then, in the human world is that there is no truth, no moral truth, no morality that can be said to be *real*, and that in the ultimate sense there is only power and what power can achieve. To believe in truth is a folly.

To pursue the illusion that we call spirituality, religious awakening, or faith, as opposed to actual facts based on real physical observations is a waste of both your time and your sanity; you should avoid doing so. And above all, don't believe the massive onslaught of lies that will tell you that if you don't, you'll turn into a robot-like zombie. Nothing of that is true.

I think this is a fundamentally false statement. It is a truth-claim however and one constructed in assumed certainty and adamancy. In actual fact everything pertaining to "spirituality, religious awakening, or faith" have no basis in science or science-facts. But no one could say (fairly) that spiritual awakening or spiritual insight or increased awareness are not real things. There is no person writing on this thread (I would assert) who has not experienced spiritual increase or awareness-awakening in some form or other. And whatever that is has no relationship to the facts of material science and physical relationships.

It is hard to say what does turn masses of people into manipulatable blocks. There is strong evidence that the largest and most consequential instances of such have happened outside of mass-religion.

So it seems to me that we still need a way and a means to talk about such things (spirituality, spiritual awakening, awakening in awareness) -- but certainly from another position or perspective outside of the mass-control of the organized religions.

It is liberating to abandon all that religious nonsense in favor of submitting to and committing to the no-nonsensical, hard-fact truth. It could make you feel like you finally can breathe and enjoy life again.

I do not think this is a true statement either. It is a truth-claim however (or a benefit-claim). Yes, it could be 'liberating' for someone involved intensely in openly false claims to relinquish them. But it has been suggested that there are really no (larger) truth-claims possible in science-facts. So then what of the larger issue of 'truth' that has been so fundamental to everything we do, think and value?

[Lacewing]

Wow, this thread has just gotten truly interesting by moving beyond the entrenched preachy nonsense.

There are many things in the last three posts that I would express agreement with, but I will just focus on responding to the following:

The first truth, then, in the human world is that there is no truth, no moral truth, no morality that can be said to be *real*, and that in the ultimate sense there is only power and what power can achieve. To believe in truth is a folly.

As we can see everywhere we look, the idea of "truth" is subjective. It cannot be owned by anyone, yet so many try to. It becomes like a religion, itself. It should simply be a signpost on an ever-expanding path -- and in that way it will continually adjust as appropriate. It should not be something that people just walk in circles around as if they've found the end-all be-all. There is always more territory to discover and consider.

As for being "moral" or doing what is good or right from the perspective of caring about the entire life-community that we are part of, it appears that this ability is more naturally present in some people than others. And with the exception of mental/spiritual illness, this natural ability is inborn with everyone, yet we may need to detox from anything that has distorted or accumulated in a way that prevents us from accessing it. Everything in nature takes care of its own to a reasonable degree and cooperates and flows with all else. All of nature IS "god" -- there is no separation. Only human beings create and impose ideas of separation. This is why/how human beings lose sight of what's naturally present and beautiful and perfect and whole. Human beings create distortions... and separate themselves by trying to rule.

Perhaps that's just what humans are often tempted to do. But we also have the ability to sidestep a lot of that for ourselves, and live more naturally and efficiency with less distortion.

It is hard to say what does turn masses of people into manipulatable blocks. There is strong evidence that the largest and most consequential instances of such have happened outside of mass-religion.

I think it's fear and the desire to control, and I think mass-religion is at the core of most of it. Without religion, we do not superimpose 'what should be' onto everyone else.

[Immanuel Can]

Wow, this thread has just gotten truly interesting by moving beyond the entrenched preachy nonsense.

To believe in truth is a folly.

Really?

Are you claiming that "to believe in truth is a folly" is TRUE, or are you only saying, "It seems to me that to believe in truth is subjectively what I feel would make me personally into a fool"?

If it's the former, you've just denied your own statement is true.

If it's the latter, nobody but you needs to care that you feel that way, subjectively.

Which way do you wish to be wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

regarding evangelism u gotta categorize the types and analyze them individually.

To do that, "u gotta" know what a Christian is.

It's obvious that one can't "categorize" and "analyze" something one can't even recognize, because one knows of no critiera for doing so.

So what are your criteria?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The first truth, then, in the human world is that there is no truth, no moral truth, no morality that can be said to be *real*, and that in the ultimate sense there is only power and what power can achieve. To believe in truth is a folly.

As we can see everywhere we look, the idea of "truth" is subjective. It cannot be owned by anyone, yet so many try to. It becomes like a religion, itself. It should simply be a signpost on an ever-expanding path -- and in that way it will continually adjust as appropriate. It should not be something that people just walk in circles around as if they've found the end-all be-all. There is always more territory to discover and consider.

Truths within specific localities are subjective. But the variability only seems to apply within certain limits. It might have seemed that I was expressing some definitive view but I was trying to paraphrase what I think BigMike's position is or would be if he extended it further.

As you know (and Dubious also knows this and calls me out for it) I do 'believe in' higher, metaphysical truths. I guess I would say that they are general outlines rather than hard and fast rules.

But my point was that in BigMike's world -- the world of science and science-facts and the place where he believes the real and the only truths are to be found -- there are no moralities. If there are moralities in the natural world they are ecological.

To say 'there are no truths' is a way of arriving at the knowledge that you (the individual) cannot make any true statements except those of material relationships, biology, and chemistry. If one really pushed that understanding to a final conclusion, I suggest, the world we would live in as a result would be terrifying. It would not be a human world.

Therefore, the question What is human? brings up the issue of metaphysics. There is no way around it.

As for being "moral" or doing what is good or right from the perspective of caring about the entire life-community that we are part of, it appears that this ability is more naturally present in some people than others. And with the exception of mental/spiritual illness, this natural ability is inborn with everyone, yet we may need to detox from anything that has distorted or accumulated in a way that prevents us from accessing it. Everything in nature takes care of its own to a reasonable degree and cooperates and flows with all else. All of nature IS "god" -- there is no separation. Only human beings create and impose ideas of separation. This is why/how human beings lose sight of what's naturally present and beautiful and perfect and whole. Human beings create distortions... and separate themselves by trying to rule.

It seems to me that one has to be trained up in being moral and "doing good ... from the perspective of caring about the entire life-community". To arrive at that, to achieve that, requires educational processes. And what is taught (to children, to the young) is not 'science-facts' or hard & cold truths from the world of vicious nature.

While one can argue against the specific moralities of the Christian school of thought, derived from Jewish ethics largely (and run through the mill of Greek rationalistic and idealistic philosophy), it seems right to say that the world that we would wind up with would appall us. So a strange problem confronts us: though we see that a great deal in Christian mythology is technically false, and cannot be supported as *truth*, nevertheless the moral and ethical systems that derive from it are indispensable. Except perhaps in some of the details.

However, with that said one can turn one's attention to non-Christian cultures where, say, Buddhism is the dominating religious and ethical mode and recognize there very decent moral and ethical admonitions.

Therefore (in my view) it always seems to have to do with connoted metaphysical values that *exist* (are part-and-parcel of things) but require being divined by human intelligence.

As far as I am aware there is no comparable intelligence in the natural world except of a conditional sort.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are you claiming that "to believe in truth is a folly" is TRUE, or are you only saying, "It seems to me that to believe in truth is subjectively what I feel would make me personally into a fool"?

What I did was to take BigMike's statement and convert it into a definitive statement so it could be examined. I then went on in a post to Lacewing to clarify what I myself believe is the best way to express and explain *truth*.

I believe, based on months of conversations with you, that you have a tendentious sense of truth. Because you are at core a religious fanatic you are, as I often point out, forced to take absolutist stances. And also stances that are culture-specific and imperious. This is where I think your failing lies. But I would not say that you cannot discern true things. And as you demonstrate you are aware of the predicate-systems upon which truth declarations depend.

This turns back to exchanges we had long ago. I understand and *believe in* the Aristotelean predicate-system which mimics mathematical truths. But in the moral realm and in the realm of life-lived (as opposed to life conceived idealistically) the entire field is more nuanced and is not as amenable to absolutism as we'd like (since most of us are inclined to wish for absolutist systems).

What I try to do in relation to you, and also in relation to Evangelical Christian tenets, is sort them out in a fair way. You are a religious fanatic nut-job (if you will permit the bold way of putting it) but you are not incapable of demonstrating, at times, sound reasoning. But at the same time there are other dimensions to your *thought* which are entirely irrational. That is, you believe *impossible things* and take them as absolute facts (confuse them with facts (and truths) is another way to put it).

So I see you as *symptomatic man*. You are a peculiar type and you are a product of a specific system of though which holds to rationalistic principles while, simultaneously, you hold to and speak from the irrational.

Really, sorting you out is quite a task.

[Lacewing]

Wow, this thread has just gotten truly interesting by moving beyond the entrenched preachy nonsense.

To believe in truth is a folly.

Really?

Are you claiming that "to believe in truth is a folly" is TRUE, or are you only saying, "It seems to me that to believe in truth is subjectively what I feel would make me personally into a fool"?

If it's the former, you've just denied your own statement is true.

If it's the latter, nobody but you needs to care that you feel that way, subjectively.

Which way do you wish to be wrong?

Stop distorting and mischaracterizing what people say, and then offering them two absurd choices that are simply a product of, and in service to, your own limitations.

[Lacewing]

It's obvious that one can't "categorize" and "analyze" something one can't even recognize...

Yet YOU do it all the time, even if you must distort and lie to do it.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you claiming that "to believe in truth is a folly" is TRUE, or are you only saying, "It seems to me that to believe in truth is subjectively what I feel would make me personally into a fool"?

I believe, based on months of conversations with you, that you have a tendentious sense of truth.

Yes. It "tends" to be truthful. At least, in this case, it certainly is.

But you dodged the obvious self-contradiction. Either what you said isn't objectively true, or it is. But if it is, it's false. And if it's not, it's not objective, and so nobody needs to be concerned.

Which is it?

[Immanuel Can]

It's obvious that one can't "categorize" and "analyze" something one can't even recognize...

Yet YOU do it all the time, even if you must distort and lie to do it.

You skipped the question. What are your criteria?

[Belinda]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

The first truth, then, in the human world is that there is no truth, no moral truth, no morality that can be said to be *real*, and that in the ultimate sense there is only power and what power can achieve. To believe in truth is a folly.

I refute it.

It's an irrefutable truth that something is happening. Experience is how we know something is happening. There is nothing that is not limited or absolute experience.

Temporal power is what limits temporal experience but is not itself experience.