Christianity

[attofishpi]

For Immanuel Can, Jacobi must be like a haunted mirror that shows exactly how you would look with a Hitler moustache.

That's an awful thing to say.

Rumour has it that IC has horns.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Back to "idea-structures" about race. Whereas I am more interested in demonstrable evidence -- scientific or otherwise -- that connects the dots between words and worlds here.

Race is just one aspect of a whole set of concerns. Again, focus on the thought of Renaud Camus. Read the article I linked to. You will see that ‘race’ is relatively minor in many of the Dissident Right (though I am not sure that Camus fits there frankly). For some it is a large concern. For others they really don’t care much about it as such. But for culture-preservers and also nation-preservers the issue is very relevant.

I am not at all interested in proving — what? — the “superiority” of one of the races over some other? People are generally equally capable though it could take numerous generations to climatize culturally. But those are not my concerns.

In terms of America? I would be concerned, and with good reasons, id the super-majority demographic status of European-derived Americans was lost. In about 50 years (since 1965) this has been happening (eroding demographics). It is leading and will lead to all sorts os social problems.

Fo I stake my life as an activist to reverse this trend? No. I am simply very interested in what is going on. And I am aware of two quite distinct poles of thought on the issue.

If you LUV social conflict and slow cultural wars with all attendant sufferings and pains you’ll luv the next decades in America.

What brought this about?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So you bluffed. There is, at least in your perspective, no way to "discern" the "purpose of life, moral and spiritual questions" by seeing them as "instilled within the creation itself."

Oh no, dear forlorn child! Is that what you want me to answer? First, I do ‘believe in’ divinity. I simply have no way to describe what *it* is. Just like I cannot describe what existence IS.

But it is.

The way people have discerned divinity historically has been through inner modes of perception, intuitive reasoning, meditation and revelation. There therapeutic/mystic model is one that many people ‘employ’ though I am unsure if that’s the right word (employ). C. G. Jung for example. (Your good buddy!)

Is this what you wanted me to answer? And having done so will you now reciprocate?

(Gotta jump in a small aircraft that does not inspire tremendous confidence. . . If you-plural never hear from me again know I did truly luv you sort of . . .)

[Harbal]

Having read and enjoyed all Barbara Pym's novels as have you,

Have you really read them all? I don't know why that pleases me so much, but it does.

I think I understand you dislike any literature that sounds sententious. I'm afraid symbolism does sometimes sound pompous and Genesis 1 is no exception.It takes a clever novelist or poet to write symbolism and also be user friendly. Jesus was good at it and his parables don't patronise his audience.

Maybe I'm too uncultured to appreciate the Bible as literature, and I certainly don't appreciate it in any other way. I find it tedious and uninteresting.

Incidentally, do you like fantasies or sci fi?

Tolkien is the only fantassy I've read, and that was a long time ago. I've become very finicky as I've got older, and with everything I read or watch I find myself thinking, no, she wouldn't do that, or, why on earth did that happen? Barbara Pym spared me from that.

[Harbal]

For Immanuel Can, Jacobi must be like a haunted mirror that shows exactly how you would look with a Hitler moustache.

That's an awful thing to say.

Rumour has it that IC has horns.

That's an awful thing to say.

[attofishpi]

That's an awful thing to say.

Rumour has it that IC has horns.

That's an awful thing to say.

Well, it's ironic you see because the actual reason he wants to save our souls is because he is a demon and realised how further tormented he would be if we were all condemned to live down there, with him, for the rest of eternity.

[iambiguous]

Back to "idea-structures" about race. Whereas I am more interested in demonstratable evidence -- scientific or otherwise -- that connects the dots between words and worlds here.

And, as I noted above...

Me? Well, as with most things, I am no less drawn and quartered in regard to race. I have my own "existential, rooted subjectively in dasein" political prejudices but racism itself is still so wide-spread who really knows where and when it stops being genes and starts being memes.

More to the point [mine] there's your own existential trajectory here. What personal experiences and relationships did you have that started you off down the racialist road. If that's how you would describe yourself.

You'll either go there with respect to race or you won't.

Race is just one aspect of a whole set of concerns. Again, focus on the thought of Renaud Camus. Read the article I linked to. You will see that ‘race’ is relatively minor in many of the Dissident Right (though I am not sure that Camus fits there frankly). For some it is a large concern. For others they really don’t care much about it as such. But for culture-preservers and also nation-preservers the issue is very relevant.

Sure, it's relevant if you've convinced yourself that genetically it's important to sustain your cultural or national identity. And, come on, many of those that do argue this, do so not because, even though their own cultural and national identity is deemed to be inferior by them, it's still important to preserve it.

Quite the opposite, right?

Also, suppose people from different cultures and different nations were so genetically special, they literally could not produce children with those from other cultures and nations. That would really be relevant, wouldn't it?

You claim this...

I am not at all interested in proving — what? — the “superiority” of one of the races over some other? People are generally equally capable though it could take numerous generations to climatize culturally. But those are not my concerns.

But according to Wiki...

"Renaud Camus born Jean Renaud Gabriel Camus on 10 August 1946) is a French novelist, conspiracy theorist and white nationalist writer. He is the inventor of the 'Great Replacement', a far-right conspiracy theory that claims that a 'global elite' is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples.

"Camus's 'Great Replacement' theory has been translated on far-right websites and adopted by far-right groups to reinforce the white genocide conspiracy theory. Although Camus has repeatedly condemned and disavowed the use of violence,[5][6][7][8] his theory has nevertheless influenced several mass shootings, including in Christchurch, El Paso, and Buffalo."

And some might be convinced that this frame of mind revolves around the racist assumption that white folks are superior to other races. Though I've come across white folks who argue that the yellow race is actually intellectually superior to the white race. But never the black or brown skinned folks.

Where do your views fit in here?

In terms of America? I would be concerned, and with good reasons, id the super-majority demographic status of European-derived Americans was lost. In about 50 years (since 1965) this has been happening (eroding demographics). It is leading and will lead to all sorts os social problems.

Okay, how concerned? Politically, how far would you go to prevent this? If you had political power in any particular community, what behaviors would you yourself proscribe in regard to the races?

[D]o I stake my life as an activist to reverse this trend? No. I am simply very interested in what is going on. And I am aware of two quite distinct poles of thought on the issue.

That might be deemed rather pathetic by some.

Also, what of those like the Jews? White Jews, say. Or white Muslims. Or white Hindus. Where does god and religion factor in here for you?

[Immanuel Can]

So you bluffed. There is, at least in your perspective, no way to "discern" the "purpose of life, moral and spiritual questions" by seeing them as "instilled within the creation itself."

Is that what you want me to answer?

What gave you your first clue, AJ? Was it any of the half dozen times I posed the same question?

First, I do ‘believe in’ divinity. I simply have no way to describe what *it* is. Just like I cannot describe what existence IS.

But it is.

Yes, I know you have some sort of vaguely Deistic bent. I'm already aware of that. But it doesn't help much to know that, because you said that the same insight could be achieved with no reference to such metaphysics...allegedly.

The way people have discerned divinity historically has been through inner modes of perception, intuitive reasoning, meditation and revelation.

Um...no.

The way some people have claimed to achieve some awareness of "divinity" has been through "inner" stuff. But "intuitive" and "reasoning" are different concepts. Meditation? Yes, among mystics...certainly not for the majority. And "revelation" is external, not internal. When Mo wandered into a cave and had his alleged "revelation," he is not thought by Islamists to have been hallucinating. The same could be said for Moses or Joseph Smith: all claimed to have had genuine, real-world deliverances from beyond, not some sort of naval-gazing or delusory experience. And nobody but a real hallucinator imagines that Jesus Christ has only been 'experienced' as fit of mystical enthusiasm. He's an actual historical figure, just like Moses or Mo themselves.

Is this what you wanted me to answer?

Sort of. But it's a pretty poor answer, to be honest. "Therapeutic" religiosity is really an artifact of the last century or so...not longer. (See Reiff, "The Triumph of the Therapeutic," which is a good read). And as for the mystical route you suppose, most major religions claim not that but a genuine encounter in real time with an actual God. So you're not representing the majority when you suppose that innerness is the main road to enlightenment: too many traditions hold otherwise.

But worse, you still haven't told me how YOU "discern the purpose of life, moral and spiritual questions" by seeing them as "instilled within the creation itself." How Mo or Moses did it was one thing: but how do YOU do it? What's YOUR method?

And having done so will you now reciprocate?

As soon as you explain how YOU know what you claim to know, I'll have a response worth having. Until then, what can I say?

(Gotta jump in a small aircraft that does not inspire tremendous confidence. . . If you-plural never hear from me again know I did truly luv you sort of . . .)

If it's small enough, one can always stick one's arms out the windows and flap hard. Happy landings.

[Immanuel Can]

That's an awful thing to say.

Rumour has it that IC has horns.

That's an awful thing to say.

They're not horns. They're antennae.

[attofishpi]

Rumour has it that IC has horns.

That's an awful thing to say.

They're not horns. They're antennae.

Dammit! Maybe that's why my prayers don't work!!

(hence Southampton remain bottom on the EPL - and of course you won't say a kind prayer for them being a Nott Fo supporter!!)

[Gary Childress]

A marathon runner trains for a marathon because there are marathons in life.

I think not. A marathon runner trains for marathons because he/she wants to be a marathoner, or to win marathons.

If there were no marathons in life then there would be no need to train for them.

That is true. But then, there would also never be the character virtues of a marathoner.

A person who works out often does so for reasons of avoiding bad consequences if they don't, such as clogged arteries and other diseases. If God had not made diseases then people wouldn't need to work out.

That's one reason to work out...not a bad one, but hardly the most compelling. The other is to achieve some personal goal or form of excellence. To "work out," in any field, is to make a deliberate effort to be the best that one can be in that field. And that requires the acquiring of skills and powers one does not presently possess, except as potentialities.

Setbacks and vexations are nothing more than setbacks and vexations.

If that's how one reacts to them, then yes, that's all they ever are...and what a tragedy if a person chooses that course. Instead of taking the opportunity for growth and self-improvement, when such come, he chooses bitterness and failure instead. But need all setbacks and vexations be treated that way? Or can we take the opportunity to treat at least some of them as challenges not failures?

If a person is a masochist, then maybe they welcome setbacks and vexations.

Well, or if he's a marathoner. Or any person of courage and purposefulness. If he sees his challenges as mere temporary obstacles to a potential success yet to come, then he may win through. Even if he does not, he has the consolation of knowing he acted heroically and courageously in aid of a goal he believes in. But often, he does: because character actually determines an awful lot in life. And there is much more ability to overcome in an ordinary human being than most ordinary human beings realize. That's precisely why we view the winners-through as specially heroic.

Otherwise, most people don't or else use them as excuses for thinking they deserve something more than someone who didn't go through the same obstacles.

You think so?

I don't find that. I find that people who have overcome obstacles tend to be more humble than those who have faced few or none...and especially when the obstacles are many and formitable.

Also, I assume you've heard the saying, "hurt people hurt people"?

Bitter people hurt people.

People who have been hurt may love people. They may have mercy on others. They may be far more capable of sympathy and compassion than those who have not been hurt. They may have depths of soul of which the unhurt have no conception. They may even be much better people as a result of their understanding of what "hurt" really means.

Or, as you say, they may simply become resentful, cruel and hurtful.

The choice is theirs which of the two they do. The whole matter depends not on the fact of having been hurt, but on how one interprets and acts on the fact one has been hurt.

And have you not heard the old R.E.M. tune? Everybody hurts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlOeGeVih4

I'm sorry, IC but after what I've been through with mental illness, sleep apnea, childhood emotional trauma, and other maladies, I don't feel particularly thankful. I don't feel like those challenges have done me any good. Maybe you need to find someone who hasn't suffered as much in life so that you can sit around with them and think happy thoughts about God together. I'm angry and I'm bitter. I feel like I got ripped off compared to many of my peers around me. I'm sorry to be a downer for you. I just wish for relief. Maybe if relief comes I'll be able to agree with you.

[Dontaskme]

I'm sorry, IC but after what I've been through with mental illness, sleep apnea, childhood emotional trauma, and other maladies, I don't feel particularly thankful. I don't feel like those challenges have done me any good. Maybe you need to find someone who hasn't suffered as much in life so that you can sit around with them and think happy thoughts about God together. I'm angry and I'm bitter. I feel like I got ripped off compared to many of my peers around me. I'm sorry to be a downer for you. I just wish for relief. Maybe if relief comes I'll be able to agree with you.

But you must be grateful for your suffering Gary. Jordan Perterson said so. It's what makes you stronger and able to endure the torture of being a live sentient feeling creature. Jordan Peterson said that too.

IC is a JP wannabe.

I'm a poet and I didn't know it.

[Harbal]

Put this way, you can see that Evolutionism is not a scientific certainty at all, even though many people would like us to think it was (a remarkable fact, in itself). It is, instead, a protected, pet ideology, which skeptics are taking on for reasons that it is supportive of other ideological positions they wish to take. There are surreptitious motives involved...people want to believe Evolutionism BECAUSE it rationalizes things like Atheism, Progressivism, Marxism, and Egoism, among others, not because the theory itself is some sort of scientific certainty. Like Papist authority, Evolutionism must not be questioned because a network of other beliefs require it to be true, not because its authority is anywere near being beyond legitimate question or scientific necessity.

But since you know that Evolutionism still has "unanswered questions," you can see that phenomenon for yourself. And you rightly say that science is "driven forward" by the raising of skeptical questions and the seeking out of additional evidence. One would have to think, therefore, that the proponents of Evolutionism either a) do not know what you know, that there are holes to be filled still, or b) are keen to gloss over the holes in order to preserve the theory, even if that means that Evolutionary biology will be inhibited from being "driven forward" thereby. But why are they so?

This reminds me of the Black Knight, in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Determined to persist against all odds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

If God, the creator, does exist, then, in the light of modern science, any rational mind that is unable to break its emotional attachment to the Bible is forced to conclude that it is an allegorical version of events. God put in place all the conditions and laws of physics necessary for the existence of the Universe, and then let it run. That seems like a win, win situation to me. You can keep God without having to resort to sophistry to defend your position.

I know you will take a dim view of that suggestion, and not least because you actually relish the challenge of defending the indefensible. And I must admit that you are very impressive at it, although the necessary dishonestly of your arguments does take the shine of one's admiration. I can't predict what your response to this will be, except to say that it is bound to be unbearably frustrating.

I'm amazed that the Devil hasn't tried to head hunt you, IC.

[Belinda]

Having read and enjoyed all Barbara Pym's novels as have you,

Have you really read them all? I don't know why that pleases me so much, but it does.

I think I understand you dislike any literature that sounds sententious. I'm afraid symbolism does sometimes sound pompous and Genesis 1 is no exception.It takes a clever novelist or poet to write symbolism and also be user friendly. Jesus was good at it and his parables don't patronise his audience.

Maybe I'm too uncultured to appreciate the Bible as literature, and I certainly don't appreciate it in any other way. I find it tedious and uninteresting.

Incidentally, do you like fantasies or sci fi?

Tolkien is the only fantassy I've read, and that was a long time ago. I've become very finicky as I've got older, and with everything I read or watch I find myself thinking, no, she wouldn't do that, or, why on earth did that happen? Barbara Pym spared me from that.

Yes, she carries the world and its sorrows very lightly, but she is aware of them.

[promethean75]

"I'm angry and I'm bitter. I feel like I got ripped off compared to many of my peers around me."

yeah but Gary this is no argument against Christianity becuz if Christianity is true, you don't get ripped off in the end if you are a committed christian.

not saying Christianity is true; very, very most likely it isn't. alls I'm sayin is all the sufferin' is eventually rendered moot by eternal life in heaven, etc., so u can't be like 'hey my life sucks so fuck god'. Life is supposed to suck... it's a condition, a built in feature, of Christianity.

at best u could object to the eternal hell bit, but even then the christian apologist will be like 'u had your chance and u blew it, etc.'

listen Christianity hasn't been around for so long for nuthin, man. it's a mastermind system of thought will all kinds of fail-safes.