Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Exegesis is very interesting, but interpretation is more immediately useful.I think this sums up what you wrote. I wish you would try harder to use plain English.

Ah, I see. You prefer to get driven around in a mere car while I prefer a chariot that is also an airplane, a submarine and a spaceship.

No one understand pretension as an art form. This makes me very sad and melancholic — but I resolve to carry on despite!

[Belinda]

Exegesis is very interesting, but interpretation is more immediately useful.I think this sums up what you wrote. I wish you would try harder to use plain English.

Ah, I see. You prefer to get driven around in a mere car while I prefer a chariot that is also an airplane, a submarine and a spaceship.

No one understand pretension as an art form. This makes me very sad and melancholic — but I resolve to carry on despite!

If you have a chariot, an airplane(sic),a submarine, or a spaceship then sure use it. But we are all men and must use the means of transport we have. It's okay if you are a pedestrian to wish you had a motor car but self deception will not help you to get a motor car.

Scientists do try to understand what is was like to partake of an extinct culture, or an exotic culture; historians and anthropologists make headway, but, saving eternity, nobody can be someone else.

I don't want to make you sad. I do want you to be more explicit and more brief, as I believe you have something to say. You can make sentences very well, and use a great lexicon, but sometimes I wonder if the reason your posts are full of sound and fury signifies , not nothing, but some rather rightish stance that you don't dare to explain in plain language.

[Harbal]

You’d never bothered to think about this till now. Watch out! If you keep repeating it, it turns into a Question, and then life answers the question. Man’s history is in the answer.

You exist within a soma (body) that asks questions. Man is a question. Life is — really! — a message.

Now that you discovered this I assume Harbal’s content and focus will change. No more Alfred E. Newman! A philosopher is born! And we witnessed it.

Okay, Alexis, let's do it your way.

[Harbal]

Exegesis is very interesting, but interpretation is more immediately useful.I think this sums up what you wrote. I wish you would try harder to use plain English.

Ah, I see. You prefer to get driven around in a mere car while I prefer a chariot that is also an airplane, a submarine and a spaceship.

Perhaps she just prefers to get driven around in a car by someone who knows how to drive.

[Immanuel Can]

But eternal nothingness is not something that anyone will ever experience, is it? After death, there is nothing, or no one, to experience it. That doesn't seem too bad to me, and certainly not something I find threatening.

I think maybe because people feel it has some sort of analogy with sleep. But sleep is a process of the living, of course. Two things strike me about it: one is that eternity is a heck of a long time. The thought of just nothing, forever, for a creature that has known life, is unutterably sad. The second is how it makes utterly trivial all of life itself...as the Existentialists said, it turns it all into a fleeting moment of desperate grasping between the womb and the tomb, ultimately leading to absolutely nothing. And there are then no morals, meanings, purposes and projects that "matter" at all...because ultimately, nothing matters. It's all just the spinning out of chance and time, until the universe itself settles forever into heat death, with every particle in the universe equally distributed, and nothing, nothing, nothing happening forever afterward.

Whatever that prospect offers, it's considerably less than eternal life, and it's considerably less than the life that human beings need.

And there's two ways of looking at it: maybe you might indeed conclude that a Christian is only grasping onto something he wants to be true, because the alternative is so unpleasant. But the other would be that the skeptic is doing so, because he doesn't want this life, which actually means something and is going somewhere, to impose any duties on him. Each, we might say, would be indulging in a wish.

But I think that kind of argument doesn't really help, because it works equally for both sides. It leaves us not knowing which critique to believe.

But if this life itself has any objective meaning

I never understand what that means. Words have meaning; when we speak or write them down they mean something, but life is a state of existence, not a message. How can it mean something?

By having been created for something. By having a purpose built into its design, instead of being a mere product of time and chance. The ancients used to call this a "telos," meaning an "outcome" or "goal." Our being here is not accidental, not without intention, not without an end-game.

as opposed to merely the delusions of subjective "meaning" we make up momentarily between the womb and the tomb, as the Existentialists put it

So, whatever "meaning" is, you prefer to have it imposed on you, rather than be free to find your own?

I prefer a real one as opposed to one I know I made up but which lacks any grounding in the reality.

How can one "find" a thing that does not exist already? But if it is waiting to be discovered, then one cannot simply be "free" to make it anything one imagines. And what is "freedom" without purpose? It's what's called "anomie," which is the state of existence without any points of reference, guidelines, direction or purpose: and anomie always produces terror, because the state of having no direction is overwhelming.

That's not an argument intended to prove meaning exists: it's just an observation that the word "free" can cheat us of an understanding of the terror of what we are contemplating. It turns out that not all "freedom" is "freeing." Absolute and unconditional freedom is a condition of heightened anxiety and confusion. One sees this again in the Existentialist philosophers, but even more in philosophers like Ellul, who wrote a whole book on the subject.

And it seems to me quite charitable to tell people that objective meaning in life is not the impossibility that their Materialism or Physicalism or Naturalism implies it is, but could be actual -- and could be good.

You call it charitable, whereas I call it interfering.

I don't hesitate to interfere when people are in danger, or, on the other hand, when they are missing out on something very important -- both which seem to me to pertain to the situation of present conversation, life.

So rather than "threaten" people with Hell, or "scare" them, isn't it better to offer people hope of eternal life?

If you are sure they want eternal life, and you are in a position to deliver it, then I suppose it's okay to offer it to them.

How about if I don't have power to deliver it, but I know Who does?

And if one, like a Christian, actually believes in that, wouldn't it be an act of singular cruelty and unkindness not to mention it?

"Give us a child till he's 7 and we'll have him for life".

I'm not speaking to children here. I highly doubt any of them are on PN.

[Immanuel Can]

I wrote 15 000 species of butterfly.

If they are interfertile, then they are not different species. If they are not interfertile, they are: but then they aren't evolving across species, but only micro-changing within species...like Darwin's finches were.

...quite obviously have common ancestors.

We don't know this. We know their DNA is similar. That just tells us they were constructed by way of similar methods; it doesn't tell us they evolved from each other.

However, as I've already pointed out, lower species have no consequence for Christian theology, so the discussion isn't really worth having for present purposes. It doesn't really change anything...except in the case of the human species.

If human evolution were true, would it not be the case that there would have been millions upon millions of dead humanoids with failed adaptations manifesting?

It is the case. There are millions of people alive today with genetic disorders, which are failed adaptations.

Not relevant, and also not enough. Even our most disordered are disordered modern humans. There aren't any Neanderthals, Piltdowns, Javas, and so on, and no transitional forms of them walking around. And according to Evolution, there certainly ought to be...and not a few, but rather innumberably more than the modern humans.

Evolution posits a highly wasteful process. For every successful adaptation, there are supposed to be millions or billions of failures.

And would not some of these, surely, have been fossilized? Why should we find that we even have to try to find the necessary human fossils of transitional forms, let alone the millions of "false starts" that Evolutionism requires us to believe there had to be?

You might wonder where all the bones of the creatures that have died in the last hundred years are. Nature is very adept are recycling valuable minerals; it takes special circumstances for skeletons to survive long enough to fossilise.[/quote]
That's true, of course: but if the proportions of failed humanoids to modern humans were what we would expect, almost all the fossils would be of failed humaniods. We wouldn't have so much a bunch of "missing links" as we would have difficulty finding a single fossilized modern human.

So if you can show that man evolved, you've got a critique of Christianity...and, I would concede, a very serious one.

I can show you, but I can't make you believe something that undermines what you choose to believe.

That's true of anyone. But if you can show me, please, feel welcome to do so. Maybe it will be helpful to others, even if you can't crack my hard skull.

[Immanuel Can]

That's an interesting claim...coming from somebody who adamantly refuses to define what he means by "Christian." However, that boat's sailed...you won't do it, it seems. So there's no use in me pointing it out again.

This is a bad-faith assertion you invented sometime back. It is false through-and-through.

Great. What's your definition of Christian?

You are right: I won’t do it.

Oh. Well, then, it wasn't a "bad faith" assertion at all. It was just true.

I made very serious efforts to study the roots of Catholicism and quite possibly have a better general understanding than you. But Protestant Evangelism, your domain, while I have a strong sense of it I did not study.

Ah, I thought so. You know Catholicism. And that's your frame of reference. That explains your mistake about "European Christendom."

Protestant Evangelism is a modern twist (or invention-modification).

It's not that "modern," and its a reforming of where Catholicism had departed from the basics of Christianity, actually. But you'd have to know the history to see that.

The issues of the Reformation were summarized briefly as the five "solas." https://www.christianity.com/church/chu ... ation.html. They're not the total story, but they''ll give you a starting point for grasping the difference between Christianity and Catholicism, particularly as the division occurred in the 16th Century. They really are "differences that make a difference."

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry: I can see you don't know anything at all about what "Christians" actually do or think. I don't want to be difficult, but you're wrong both times.

Demonstrate this.

Well, you said "Christians" do this or they do that. I don't see either, at all...nor do I personally do either. Nor do I know anybody who does either. So it's really you that needs to demonstrate that that is what "Christians" do...though you still have "Christian" defined basically as "Catholic," so I don't know what you're going to do with that.

[Immanuel Can]

Christian-Catholic

There it is! We now have your definition, basically. A "Christian" is a "Catholic," plus other people about whom you say you don't know so much.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Christian-Catholic

There it is! We now have your definition, basically. A "Christian" is a "Catholic," plus other people about whom you say you don't know so much.

Here is the ‘trap’. I say that Catholicism-Christianity is a Greco-Christian thing. You desire to say that, No, it is a unique, pure and different thing than that. You are a Protestant Evangelical, a unique cultural and theological animal. And your perspective — a set of choices and emphasis and selections — dominates your perception and all your concerns.

Your religious fanaticism is also located in that.

I am not a religious fanatic and in that you must oppose me. Your fanaticism is a flaw as well as an ‘engine’ that empowers your entire show. Your successive argument will revolve exclusively around this.

Jump in! It could be fun!

[Immanuel Can]

I say that Catholicism-Christianity is a Greco-Christian thing.

I understand why you say that, now.

For you, "Christian" means "Roman Catholic," which goes back, through people like Aquinas, to Aristotle. And you're right: Catholicism is a syncretism of pagan sources and Jewish thought, the "Roman" and the putatively "universal." It's a Romanized clerical institution with universal political ambitions.

I am not a religious fanatic and in that you must oppose me.

Yeah...no. I don't really need to do anything.

The reason I got into the discussion and was pressing for your definition was simply that I could tell you didn't know anything accurate about Christian theology. I was merely at pains to see that I helped you get better, more accurate information as to what "Christian" really entails. I don't feel I need to "oppose" you, and certainly not because you fail to be a "fanatic." You don't represent any kind of threat or problem to me.

How could you? You're not even really talking about people like me, though you don't seem to know it yet.

My actual point was to help you make your theory better. And I was kind of astonished that you so adamantly refused better information than you already had. It made me wonder if you didn't have some high-stakes emotional investment in your theory that I was unaware of. And maybe that's still the case: but I think the point has been cleared up.

Your frame of reference is Catholicism, and (as people often do) you're generalizing from what you know, unaware that your generalizations fail to hold once you range beyond your own frame of reference.

[Harbal]

But eternal nothingness is not something that anyone will ever experience, is it? After death, there is nothing, or no one, to experience it. That doesn't seem too bad to me, and certainly not something I find threatening.

I think maybe because people feel it has some sort of analogy with sleep. But sleep is a process of the living, of course.

I think to compare it to the vast expanse of time before we were born is a better way to think of it.

Two things strike me about it: one is that eternity is a heck of a long time. The thought of just nothing, forever, for a creature that has known life, is unutterably sad.

Any sadness I might feel about no longer existing is attached to people and things on earth, which I would still be separated from in your account of afterlife. Besides, whether it is sad has no bearing on whether it is the case.

The second is how it makes utterly trivial all of life itself...as the Existentialists said, it turns it all into a fleeting moment of desperate grasping between the womb and the tomb, ultimately leading to absolutely nothing.

Again, none of that alters the facts of the matter. You can't argue that something cannot be true simply because it would be terribly sad if it were.

And there are then no morals, meanings, purposes and projects that "matter" at all...because ultimately, nothing matters. It's all just the spinning out of chance and time, until the universe itself settles forever into heat death

Morals, personal purpose and many other things matter to most people during their life, regardless of whether or not they believe in an afterlife. I don't expect an afterlife, but things here on earth matter to me.

It's all just the spinning out of chance and time, until the universe itself settles forever into heat death, with every particle in the universe equally distributed, and nothing, nothing, nothing happening forever afterward.

As I don't expect to ever experience anything beyond my mortal existence, that doesn't really mean anything to me.

Whatever that prospect offers, it's considerably less than eternal life, and it's considerably less than the life that human beings need.

Maybe eternal life would be preferable, and maybe it wouldn't, but I agree that some human beings do need to believe there is more than nothing after their physical death.

I never understand what that means. Words have meaning; when we speak or write them down they mean something, but life is a state of existence, not a message. How can it mean something?

By having been created for something. By having a purpose built into its design, instead of being a mere product of time and chance.

But that purpose would have nothing to do with me. God might have an interest in seeing the purpose fulfilled, but I haven't. And many people do fill their lives with purpose, or seem to. If God can grant purpose, then purposes must be capable of being granted, in which case why can't we grant them to ourselves?

How about if I don't have power to deliver it, but I know Who does?

I find the propagation of religious beliefs distasteful, and often sinister, so I am bound to disaprove of it. I have similar feelings towards more extreme political beliefs, also.

[Immanuel Can]

But eternal nothingness is not something that anyone will ever experience, is it? After death, there is nothing, or no one, to experience it. That doesn't seem too bad to me, and certainly not something I find threatening.

I think maybe because people feel it has some sort of analogy with sleep. But sleep is a process of the living, of course.

I think to compare it to the vast expanse of time before we were born is a better way to think of it.

Yes, probably: but then, of course, we had no idea what we would not be having. And that's an interesting feature about life: that even people who are not particularly happy by way of circumstances, or even by disposition, will instinctively want more of it. Very few indeed are the people who are so disenchanted by it that they just "off" themselves instantly. Even suicides are often misguided people who hope, by their actions, to "change" their lot in life and its meaning, by leaving an impression on others -- that's why they write suicide notes.

People, once they've experienced life, want more of it. And they want better. And if I think they can have it, why wouldn't I tell them they can, and tell them as well how I think they can?

You can't argue that something cannot be true simply because it would be terribly sad if it were.

No, and I don't try to say that. But likewise, a thing doesn't become more true simply by way of being harsh, cynical, or negative.

But if something is sad, then it is certainly good incentive to want something better, some alternative. Nihilistic resignation is a very poor option. And in any case, if the Nihilist were right, why not even delude yourself? If it makes a person happy, even if one were to become idiotically happy, why would the Nihilist speak against that option? For him, nothing matters anyway...not even truth.

But Nihilism's cynicism doesn't make it wise. It just makes it cynical.

And there are then no morals, meanings, purposes and projects that "matter" at all...because ultimately, nothing matters. It's all just the spinning out of chance and time, until the universe itself settles forever into heat death

Morals, personal purpose and many other things matter to most people during their life, regardless of whether or not they believe in an afterlife. I don't expect an afterlife, but things here on earth matter to me.

That is true, and I get that. But think what it implies.

It implies that, for some reason, people just can't or don't want to live without these things, even though their personal beliefs may assure them they're all bunk! That's a startling fact, and needs some explanation: why would we, mere chance products of an indifferent universe, come to have a desperate longing for things that have absolutely no reality behind them? In fact, from what sort of inducement would such an urge even first emerge?

Whatever that prospect offers, it's considerably less than eternal life, and it's considerably less than the life that human beings need.

Maybe eternal life would be preferable, and maybe it wouldn't, but I agree that some human beings do need to believe there is more than nothing after their physical death.

Yes. That's the fact I think needs explanation.

It sounds quite weird and maladaptive, if one thinks about it from, say, a Materialist or Evolutionary theory of things. Why would materials or chance and time induce people to want so passionately and universally things that have no prospect of fulfillment, and no reality in existence at all?

I never understand what that means. Words have meaning; when we speak or write them down they mean something, but life is a state of existence, not a message. How can it mean something?

By having been created for something. By having a purpose built into its design, instead of being a mere product of time and chance.

But that purpose would have nothing to do with me. God might have an interest in seeing the purpose fulfilled, but I haven't.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. I think that things that find their right use become elegant, powerful, effective and useful.

A hammer can be used for doing things like, say, opening a tin of beans. But it works very badly at that. When a hammer becomes an elegant tool is when one is, say, a cooper making a barrel, or an iron worker shaping iron. Then, the hammer really sings. It's an instrument that has found its right use, its right place, and is doing what it was designed to do.

And I wonder if human beings aren't very much like that. When they find their right use, they start to sing. There's nothing so wonderful as watching a high-calibre athlete float through a defense and score effortlessly, or a talented musician take those high notes to soaring heights, or watching a skilled negotiator navigate a tough negotiation into a solution that results in everybody slapping each other on the back and shaking hands...these things are elegant and beautiful.

And I think that the reason so many people are unhappy is maybe that they've never found their right use. They've never felt what it is to be in the moment and say, "I was born to be here; this is what I do, and what I was made for." That's an astonishing and delightful thing, if you have ever had such a moment. And what if many, many more such moments were possible; and not just moments, but an ongoing feeling of being exactly at the right place, at the right time, and being perfectly swimming in one's element? How could that sort of thing be anything less than delightful?

So maybe we do have a stake -- a real stake -- in seeing God's design purposes in us fulfilled. Maybe when He wins, we win.

And many people do fill their lives with purpose, or seem to. If God can grant purpose, then purposes must be capable of being granted, in which case why can't we grant them to ourselves?

Well, because we're not God. We are not our own designer, and cannot make ourselves into what we were not designed to be, without causing ourselves suffering as a result. And we don't have control of our own situation, so we find that even the errant purposes we design for ourselves are uncommonly hard to achieve. So we end up frustrated and bitter, because life hasn't delivered to us what we demanded of it...it wouldn't let us "grant ourselves" what we thought we wanted.

How about if I don't have power to deliver it, but I know Who does?

I find the propagation of religious beliefs distasteful, and often sinister, so I am bound to disaprove of it. I have similar feelings towards more extreme political beliefs, also.

I actually share that. I am very, very skeptical about politics. And I'm very, very skeptical about authoritarian religiosity, as well.

However, sharing of well-considered insights, I find quite pleasing. And the sharing of good news is a wonderful thing to do. I think everything's okay, so long as the person on the other end of the line gets to choose, at the end of the day, what he or she is willing to believe.

The chief thing I detest about both politics and authoritarian religiosity is compulsion, the use of force and trickery instead of conversation and persuasion.

[Immanuel Can]

Exegesis is very interesting, but interpretation is more immediately useful.I think this sums up what you wrote. I wish you would try harder to use plain English.

Ah, I see. You prefer to get driven around in a mere car while I prefer a chariot that is also an airplane, a submarine and a spaceship.

.

Orwell's rules of honest language-use, from his essay, "Politics and the English Language" (1946):


"i.Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable...I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought."


Interesting, no?

I commend the whole essay. It's excellent, but not very long.

[seeds]

_______



_______