Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Harbal]

I didn't say or think you were pulling the core ideas out of your ass.

But I would say that is where he ought to shove them.

I'm still not sure what they are. I mean, I did get a bit more. And I know that some people will react negatively. And maybe he thinks in absolutist terms, or maybe not since he calls himself a modernist who can't do that, though it seems like we should. I got the impression somewhere he wasn't a theist. That could be on me. Maybe he is. Maybe I'll find out. Then perhaps I'll be able to decide where the ideas should be shelved.
Christian civilization led to the modern secular society as much as the 50s led to the 60s. I don't know why there is so much faith in what already failed by its own standards But I'm not even sure he has faith in Catholicism, God, faith itself. But perhaps this will seep out somehow.

I only read bits of what is said in this thread, and I really don't know where he is going with it, but I am getting an impression of a vague picture emerging. I don't think he believes in God, or anything, and he isn't a Catholic himself, but he seems to think the rest of us need to put ourselves under the discipline and moral authority of the Catholic Church, in order to restore our sick society.

[Iwannaplato]

Why must everything hinge back to me? Why is what I believe so necessary for you?

We're communicating. You're asserting things. I'm trying to understand them. I did respond to one of the people you quoted, but then in the context of you having chosen to quote that.

I can read philosophical works to find out other people's ideas. I can even on occasion have some kind of interaction with them. I've done that also. But here, sure, I am trying to understand what people are asserting. If I understand, I respond. I sometimes respond to triangulate. OK, it seems like he or she is saying X. So, I'll respond as if that's it and see what happens. It's a forum.

Iwannaplato: no answer that I will provide, or that classic theology provides, will satisfy you! You do not agree with the core premises.

My satisfaction is not limited here to agreeing with what people say or getting them to agree with me.

It's seems to me a good use of a discussion forum is to see what happens when ideas and people interact. Is it really odd that I would try to understand what you believe? Aren't you asserting things you believe here? Wouldn't it be odd if I didn't try to understand what you are asserting?

[Iwannaplato]

But I would say that is where he ought to shove them.

I'm still not sure what they are. I mean, I did get a bit more. And I know that some people will react negatively. And maybe he thinks in absolutist terms, or maybe not since he calls himself a modernist who can't do that, though it seems like we should. I got the impression somewhere he wasn't a theist. That could be on me. Maybe he is. Maybe I'll find out. Then perhaps I'll be able to decide where the ideas should be shelved.
Christian civilization led to the modern secular society as much as the 50s led to the 60s. I don't know why there is so much faith in what already failed by its own standards But I'm not even sure he has faith in Catholicism, God, faith itself. But perhaps this will seep out somehow.

I only read bits of what is said in this thread, and I really don't know where he is going with it, but I am getting an impression of a vague picture emerging. I don't think he believes in God, or anything, and he isn't a Catholic himself, but he seems to think the rest of us need to put ourselves under the discipline and moral authority of the Catholic Church, in order to restore our sick society.

That seems possible. I don't know.

He asked me why it was important for me to know what he believes. That's one of the strangest questions I've had here, unless of course, he is asserting things he doesn't believe. Then I suppose it wouldn't really matter for the topic in the thread. I'd be off topic then, trying to understand what he believes since what he asserts wouldn't be what he believes.

I suddenly feel like I am heading into Age territory, where he doesn't believe the things he asserts. There are merely views.

Do I apologize for trying to understand what someone means and believes?

I don't know the etiquette here.

[Harbal]

I'm still not sure what they are. I mean, I did get a bit more. And I know that some people will react negatively. And maybe he thinks in absolutist terms, or maybe not since he calls himself a modernist who can't do that, though it seems like we should. I got the impression somewhere he wasn't a theist. That could be on me. Maybe he is. Maybe I'll find out. Then perhaps I'll be able to decide where the ideas should be shelved.
Christian civilization led to the modern secular society as much as the 50s led to the 60s. I don't know why there is so much faith in what already failed by its own standards But I'm not even sure he has faith in Catholicism, God, faith itself. But perhaps this will seep out somehow.

I only read bits of what is said in this thread, and I really don't know where he is going with it, but I am getting an impression of a vague picture emerging. I don't think he believes in God, or anything, and he isn't a Catholic himself, but he seems to think the rest of us need to put ourselves under the discipline and moral authority of the Catholic Church, in order to restore our sick society.

That seems possible. I don't know.

He asked me why it was important for me to know what he believes. That's one of the strangest questions I've had here, unless of course, he is asserting things he doesn't believe. Then I suppose it wouldn't really matter for the topic in the thread. I'd be off topic then, trying to understand what he believes since what he asserts wouldn't be what he believes.

I suddenly feel like I am heading into Age territory, where he doesn't believe the things he asserts. There are merely views.

Do I apologize for trying to understand what someone means and believes?

I don't know the etiquette here.

It's us that need the belief, not him, he is already an "excellent man". We are very far from being excellent men, so we need whipping into shape, we need some Catholic discipline.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But why does it have to be categorized as not natural? Isn't anything real natural? You keep using the term. I don't see any use for saying that real things are not natural.

I guess because Grace, Christian Grace, is not registered, observed or understood to be a part of the natural, historical world. Grace (and Charity in the theological sense) was initiated at the Incarnation. I regret if it grates in your ears but, in Christian terms, God entered the embodied state as an act of Grace (and Charity) and initiated a movement that will not, cannot, be stopped.

Man didn’t — couldn’t — do this. Only God could.

Everything hinges there.

These are the basic tenets of Christian belief, bro, don’t beat me beat them…

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is it really odd that I would try to understand what you believe?

It is not going to be the route that helps us to understand Dawson, or many apologists, nor the on-going struggles in our present.

If I do not make absolute claims of belief in this or that nevertheless the larger conversation is still interesting and important.

I am not here proselytizing. Though I do definitely believe that the realm of these considerations and ideas are extremely relevant.

That is why, as an adjunct to Dawson’s assertion about Christianity as the key to human renewal, I am trying to be clear about the core metaphysical tenets of Christianity.

[Alexis Jacobi]

He asked me why it was important for me to know what he believes.

Yes, because the thread’s purpose is an examination of Christian civilization — Dawson’s views as the starting point — and his assertions about Christianity as a “way to renewal of human life”.

[When we get to page 500 — no wait let’s make it 650 — I will drop my bombshell broadside where the 411 essential theo- and geo-theological laws are laid out in crystalline detail. You will not want to miss it!]

Good Lord, Iwannaplato, relax a bit!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I only read bits of what is said in this thread …

That’s where you should have stopped!

[Dubious]

Can Truth be 'pretended' away?

Yes it can, courtesy of those who pretend to have it, consistently negating their pretensions by seeking to verify it. Having a sufficient vocabulary only allows one a pretension to truth, or even if there is such a thing...and if there is, which parts should be disregarded. In effect, when does untruth itself become a power to enhance or diminish. Does the truth of truth automatically supply its own negation?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I’m too busy to beat on you, Dubious (though note that I do have an opening next Wednesday), but for brevity’s sake: you did not understand what Wizard meant.

Your odd brand of psychobabble is clever but empty.

[Dubious]

I’m too busy to beat on you, Dubious (though note that I do have an opening next Wednesday), but for brevity’s sake: you did not understand what Wizard meant.

Your odd brand of psychobabble is clever but empty.

It wasn't addressed to you. Speaking of psychobabble, I'm merely occasional while you're consistent. My premise is simply that truth can never be a fixation on a truth ideal. I realize that such ideas do not meet with your approval, being unable to think analytically beyond what others have written. You're nothing more than an expounder of old ideas and ideals slightly modified.

[Gary Childress]

I think you focus on a more Calvinistic, possibly Protestant, apologetic point? Dawson recognizes that a culture can be ethically Christian and an individual can be so through cultural osmosis. I accept that view.

That's fine in my book. I think love thy neighbor, forgiveness and fellowship are great things. However, to be strictly in line with what the Bible says it seems that one is supposed to believe following Christ is the way to Heaven. That could certainly be true in so far as a kind and gentle person will go far in life on his own accord. Or it could be true at pain of eternal torment for the unbelieving, I don't know.

[attofishpi]

I think you focus on a more Calvinistic, possibly Protestant, apologetic point? Dawson recognizes that a culture can be ethically Christian and an individual can be so through cultural osmosis. I accept that view.

That's fine in my book. I think love thy neighbor, forgiveness and fellowship are great things. However, to be strictly in line with what the Bible says it seems that one is supposed to believe following Christ is the way to Heaven. That could certainly be true in so far as a kind and gentle person will go far in life on his own accord. Or it could be true at pain of eternal torment for the unbelieving, I don't know.

I think you need to understand re "pain of eternal torment for the unbelieving" is not so much about simply "unbelieving" but the evil actions wo\man do, due to the fact that they don't believe..(that there is anything beyond man's JUST_ICE).

[Iwannaplato]

But why does it have to be categorized as not natural? Isn't anything real natural? You keep using the term. I don't see any use for saying that real things are not natural.

I guess because Grace, Christian Grace, is not registered, observed or understood to be a part of the natural, historical world.

If it is observered/experienced, it's natural. It is part of the way things are. It is real. And Grace if offered throughout all of the natural world, if you open to it. Anywhere a human goes, it is a facet of reality. Google Grace is Everywhere and you'll find the Catholics lining up. There's an old hatred of the body, the physical in Christianity. It's a kind of contamination obsessive-compulsive disorder. It's one of the many reasons that Christianity will always unravel. It has self-hatred built into it. So, does the whole crucifixion episode and attendant 'born-in-debt metaphysics, which isn't really necessary for the idea of Grace. Though even Grace is tinged with self-hatred. It is often presented as a gift and an implicit debt, rather than part of parcel of being loved. It is, at least in Catholicism, not simply that one cannot do it alone or that God knows, can do things we do not. It's part of that debt mentality and the whole sacrifice submission undercurrent in not only the Abrahamic religions but even many parts of HIndusism and in some almost secular form in Buddhism as the baby of Hinduism.

Implicit self-hatred will unravel. Humility need not. And secular society of course promotes its own insanities and self-hatred: but that's another topic.

Grace (and Charity in the theological sense) was initiated at the Incarnation. I regret if it grates in your ears but, in Christian terms, God entered the embodied state as an act of Grace (and Charity) and initiated a movement that will not, cannot, be stopped.

Man didn’t — couldn’t — do this. Only God could.

It's peachy that the deity wants to help. It's peachy that humans are considered unable to do it alone. But there are facets of that story that train self-hatred. It's one of the many reasons Catholicism unraveled in so many areas and why it is still unraveling now. It wasn't just some bad apple priests who had sex with children, for example, that's an inevitable byproduct of the hatred of the physical and the trained self-hatred that priests get aimed at them even more than average Catholics. Which is why the abuse (and its coverup) was systematic.

Everything hinges there.

These are the basic tenets of Christian belief, bro, don’t beat me beat them…

You seem to have a real victim mentality about posting here, even if this last was meant partly ironically.
Again, I have no problem with Grace, but if it's real, it's natural. I believe in things that are not registered as natural. But they're natural.

[Iwannaplato]

Is it really odd that I would try to understand what you believe?

It is not going to be the route that helps us to understand Dawson, or many apologists, nor the on-going struggles in our present.

If Dawson hasn't managed to convince himself or you to actually believe what he and perhaps you think we need to believe, how is his argument/point of view useful? What makes you think it might be a helpful view, if you don't believe what he thinks we need to believe? If you do believe in the incarnation and what it means, a la Dawson, well here I am discussing this with someone who believes this. I don't have Dawson here, though I don't know if he believes. If you don't believe, then it seems you yourself have not been changed by those ideas in the important ways you mention. Why is that?

If I do not make absolute claims of belief in this or that nevertheless the larger conversation is still interesting and important.

I think you're confused about Catholic doctrine. You don't have to make absolute claims of belief and in a sense that would be hubris. You have faith, in the sketchy way humans do, and you try to return to that. You may have dark nights of the soul, you may have failures of faith, being human, all that's built in.

I am not here proselytizing. Though I do definitely believe that the realm of these considerations and ideas are extremely relevant.

You're arguing that something is needed and this is it. This isn't a blog where you share interesting ideas. It's a philosophy forum where people suggest X is true. You have been suggesting that we, the US perhaps Europe need Christianity to treat/reduce/elminate the current decadence/sickness. We don't need to call that proselytizing. I wouldn't anyway. But you're asserting it, arguing for it. That idea will get criticism. It's your idea, you believe that.

That is why, as an adjunct to Dawson’s assertion about Christianity as the key to human renewal, I am trying to be clear about the core metaphysical tenets of Christianity.

And it seems like you believe he is correct. I am communicating with you related to your assertions. This means that your beliefs, the ones that surround and support, for you, your assertions are relevant. And if you don't actually believe in Christian Metaphysics (and if Dawson doesn't) I think your sense that they are nevertheless necessary is odd.

And, again, a core issue, I think, is since Christianity unraveled, why will it work this time around. Why wouldn't we look for something else?

Is Harbal correct that you don't see the need so much for you to believe in it, but that most people need it for us to have a healthy society?