Christianity

[Harbal]

No matter how it is looked at (the phenomenon of Christianity) both Gary and Dubious (among others not to be named) evince a thoroughly superficial understanding and relationship with the entire question.

I don't know if I should be embarrassed to admit this, but I have never come across the word, "evince", before. But if Jacobi isn't embarrassed about using such words, I don't see why I should be embarrassed about not knowing what they mean.

[Iwannaplato]

No matter how it is looked at (the phenomenon of Christianity) both Gary and Dubious (among others not to be named) evince a thoroughly superficial understanding and relationship with the entire question.

I don't know if I should be embarrassed to admit this, but I have never come across the word, "evince", before. But if Jacobi isn't embarrassed about using such words, I don't see why I should be embarrassed about not knowing what they mean.

It seems to me one doesn't need to evince a thoroughly superficial understanding since it's right there on the surface.

[Harbal]

No matter how it is looked at (the phenomenon of Christianity) both Gary and Dubious (among others not to be named) evince a thoroughly superficial understanding and relationship with the entire question.

I don't know if I should be embarrassed to admit this, but I have never come across the word, "evince", before. But if Jacobi isn't embarrassed about using such words, I don't see why I should be embarrassed about not knowing what they mean.

It seems to me one doesn't need to evince a thoroughly superficial understanding since it's right there on the surface.

Perhaps someone gave him the word for his birthday, and he was eager to try it out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't know if I should be embarrassed to admit this, but I have never come across the word, "evince", before.

Sure you have. You must have. You probably just skipped over it and then forgot about it.

[Iwannaplato]

Perhaps someone gave him the word for his birthday, and he was eager to try it out.

Now, now, Harbal. We've all had the occasional grandiloquence after excogitating.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But if Jacobi isn't embarrassed about using such words, I don't see why I should be embarrassed about not knowing what they mean.

Time and again I say that you are perfectly emblematic of an ignorant tendency that is more and more common. I have referred to the phenomenon of the intrusion of Mass Man into areas where he really should not step without (basic) preparation. To say such a thing, for example to an American (and then quote Tocqueville who emphasized it) — will earn you eternal enmity. But you are an Englishman!

What is most reprehensible in your case is less that you aren’t embarrassed by your ignorance, and far more that you don’t care!

The general, and quite real, anti-Christian animus that is widely present with such intensity is certainly complex and has certain validity. I’d certainly never deny this and have written a good deal to that topic.

But it can also be critically examined. And that is my point and a valid one.

Dubious drips with that sentiment despite his falsely nuanced disclaimers. But the actual truth, explored by level-headed men, points to very good reasons to recognize value in the processes through which Europe was civilized. And this had so much to do with Christian doctrines such that (in my utterly humble opinion) only a fool would make the effort to deny it.

The canard about the horrors of the Medieval Era is typical as a tossed log of ‘evidence’. But truthfully when the assertion is examined it falls flat. Yet it requires a careful and a nuanced examination to come to that understanding.

Many, who seem driven by animus in minor or major degrees, set a block against careful and nuanced examination. But their opposition, though motivated psychologically, makes at least some (irrational) sense.

But in your case Harbal you genuinely do not care. Its the energy in controversy that seems to hold you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You, of course, have a very concrete understanding of the entire question gleaned through all the authoritative tomes you've read.

This you’ve said a number of times and it puzzles me. “Tomes” are found in libraries.

tome (toʊm)
n.
1. a book, esp. a very heavy, large, or learned book.
2. a volume forming a part of a larger work.
[1510–20; < French < Latin tomus < Greek tómos slice, piece, papyrus roll, derivative of témnein to cut]

Are you trying to say that reading is bad or an unproductive activity? Are books somehow bad in your view? Are libraries bad? Do you not read? Have you not read?

Where do you suggest that concrete understanding can come from if not from knowledge? (I don’t know how to phrase the question). And what source of knowledge do you refer to that is different from what people deal on in the books they write?

I am certain that the questions you have asked of me have good answers, and I’ll make an effort, but in exchange can you help me get clear about what you mean?

[Alexis Jacobi]

But in your case Harbal you genuinely do not care. Its the energy in controversy that seems to hold you.

The attraction to controversy and argument where disturbed feelings are provoked and indulged in, where the energy of conflict draws people like moths to flame — seems symptomatic to me. I wonder what it is about.

[Harbal]

But in your case Harbal you genuinely do not care. Its the energy in controversy that seems to hold you.

I don't care about the same things you seem to, that's for sure.

[Iwannaplato]

But in your case Harbal you genuinely do not care. Its the energy in controversy that seems to hold you.

The attraction to controversy and argument where disturbed feelings are provoked and indulged in, where the energy of conflict draws people like moths to flame — seems symptomatic to me. I wonder what it is about.

Well, you are now psychoanalyzing (in the everyday sense) someone you think is attracted to controversy. It seems your moth is drawn also. So, you could just ask yourself - what drew you to poke someone you see as liking conflict?

[Immanuel Can]

As far as I'm aware, neither science nor academia in general take the supernatural into account during the course of their investigations, and who are we to say they are being remiss?

Actually, since Postmodernism especially, both have come back into play significantly. The view that science is going to be the comprehensive answer to truth is no longer accepted in the academy, for various reasons; and while it is not advanced often under the heading "supernatural," the metaphysical has also returned. The "Enlightenment" belief that both were permanently receding has been severely undermined by the new critiques...not from religious sources, but entirely from secular ones.

But there's a lot to be said about that, and it will take some reading for a person raised in the post-Enlightenment enthusiasms of the earlier part of the last century to catch up with what's happened.

That's all got to hang open, unless we have some good and sufficient line of reasoning to convince rational people that we should close our minds on that.

You've caught me off guard here; I'm afraid it never occurred to me that rational people might need convincing.

Rational people do little else but insist that they be convinced before they close their minds, in fact.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, you are now psychoanalyzing (in the everyday sense) someone you think is attracted to controversy. It seems your moth is drawn also. So, you could just ask yourself - what drew you to poke someone you see as liking conflict?

Psychoanalyzing is I think inevitable. Not only towards our own selves but certainly in relation to the topics we are discussing. The issue revolves around how it is done. Fairly or unfairly are the terms I use.

I feel genuinely and also honestly forced to examine Harbal and his thoughts predicates and conclusions if only because I take the issue of what has happened in our civilization seriously. I try to illustrate a larger issue by reference to a smaller manifestation of it. Can you honestly say that the effort, if carried out carefully and with the caveat I always toss in, is not fair? And is it not useful as well? If we ourselves are not the subject of our inquiries, what really are we doing here?

Having participated in forums like this for many years I am definitely aware of the attraction to controversy. And there is no doubt that I find these conversations extremely useful. But not quite because I need or seek conflict in order to get from it some *energy*. (Like a vampire needs life-blood to stay alive -- or maintain himself in a half-dead state eternally).

Is it an invalid proposition that some people (on these forums) get locked, permanently, into a polemical activity? Is it an invalid observation that people are attracted to the conflict for, perhaps, ulterior reasons? Why would it be wrong to take a stab at saying something about this? Is it offensive?

My moth is definitely drawn many of the controversies that operate so powerfully in ourselves and in our present. And sure, I use them. But there are different implications in the word *use*. I made a statement in which I question Harbal's relationship to the controversies we discuss here. He has stated many times he has no interest at all in the essence of the questions! And yet he chatters on about them. It seems to me that someone with his orientation would move on to issues that actually concern him -- in some genuine sense.

So, why the attraction to these issues? Is the question a bad one?

I do not wish to haggle personally with him or anyone. The topic can be discussed dispassionately.

what drew you to poke someone you see as liking conflict?

I have explained this many different times. I regard Harbal as 'emblematic' of what has happened to, and been done to, men of our modernity. And I do include myself (as I have also said a dozen times). We confront a significant problem, I think, when we confront our own ignorance and indifference!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't care about the same things you seem to, that's for sure.

You do not seem to care about much of anything, to be more truthful. But you situate yourself within the very center of an issue that you declare has no relevancy or importance for you. I interpret you as *empty man*. Yet you arose in a culture that, historically, is anything but empty. You are a man void of concerns. My impression is you are just passing the time with no specific object in view.

I am not at all concerned about your choices Harbal. You are irrelevant. But to the degree that you illustrate tendencies that are operative more generally, it is only in that sense that I find you marvelously illustrative.

Now, please write some childish and inane comment as if that is a reasonable and reasoned retort. That's your style, right?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The view that science is going to be the comprehensive answer to truth is no longer accepted in the academy, for various reasons; and while it is not advanced often under the heading "supernatural," the metaphysical has also returned. The "Enlightenment" belief that both were permanently receding has been severely undermined by the new critiques...not from religious sources, but entirely from secular ones.

So, there you have it, nicely stated. It does not matter really who wrote the paragraph, it is definitely a true statement, and because it is a true statement it is worthy of examination and consideration.

This might be a good point to introduce the discourse of a man (Tom Holland) -- not a Christian believer in the traditional sense, but definitely a member of the *academy* and a historian -- who talks about the reasons why his view and understanding of Christianity has changed. In this sense he is emblematic of what IC mentioned.

It is really a question of becoming aware of the movement of ideas in our culture.

And there are scientists -- serious and well-prepared people with genuine standing -- who could be presented here as questioning the core paradigm of scientism and general materialism. Fact!

[promethean75]

"You on the other hand — but not to compare of course — constantly surprise. Are you stuck as well? How do you assess yourself?"

Well like any ordinary Joes we've been poisoned by pascal's wager... basically scared to death by Christianity and broken down by it, a permanent mind fuck that we have to suffer until we die kinda thing. There's so much we wanna do but won't becuz we can't be sure god doesn't exist (the christian one). It's horrible. Like living a nightmare. And it gets worse; if we are genuine nihilists we should not worry ourselves with the fact that we were wrong, god didn't exist, and we wasted our whole life living in fear... if in fact we were wrong. We couldn't legitimately complain about it becuz 'nothing matters anyway' etc. It's a hopelessly depressing logically solid lifetime mindfuck that afflicts man.