Christian Civilization -- The Central Issue

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'll even focus on some potential subtopics, some mentioned, some not:

1) because of some of the side effects of the CC's views on sex and the body: systematic priest perpetrated sexual abuse
2) because of the born-in-debt metaphysics in CC metaphysics
3) because of many of the things that happened when the CC has been a central power in the lives of people
4) because the incarnation story includes sacrifice in a way that functions as a kind of generalized guilt trip
5) because of the implicit distaste for nature
6) because of the anti-political, anti this life stance of Jesus
7) because of the unbelievable metaphysical thread involved in Hell
8 ) because the metaphysics is out of balance between the male and female - even down to birthing the universe.

1) not good enough reason to reject the central doctrines. I might assume that you have a prejudiced view on the doctrines. Have you studied them in depth yourself?

2) yes, there is no way around that. But there is also a description of that debt which makes it, I think, easier to understand.

3) extraordinarily positive things were brought into European existence because of the Church. These, naturally, are not part of your knowledge-base.

4) that's an extension of point 2)

5) you'd have to explain more. This could be taken in different ways.

[5-1/2) Does anyone wonder what nefarious things Harry Baird is up to?!?]

6) false assertion. You have not been exposed to the full spectrum of Catholic doctrines.

7) it is not at all hard to conceive of hellish experiences brought about by error. And if the soul is taken as *immortal* then a time in hellish realms can be easily understood. What is very hard to accept is eternal punishment.

8.) that seems a modern trope and I am not sure if I agree that Catholic doctrines create imbalance. In fact I am uncertain what you mean.

And yet people asking about your views seemed to annoy you.

Only when there is a stubborn instance or something that seems like a demand.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why are you here?

Allow me more clarification. I am here (since I came on again over a year ago) to receive jolts, blasts, oppositions and to hear people speak from within (what I now better understand to be) severe — severe! — spiritual error.

But don’t follow up by asking (demanding) that I spell all that out. My general view is that we are all in states of severe disorder. To understand this is my own project.

It is because, through this witnessing, that I better understand my own •error•. That is why I am here mostly. Though I do not have much of an intellectual community here where I live and forums have often been one way to get that type of exchange.

I said numerous times: my purposes are (sort of) selfish (personal perhaps is the better word).

If you would like me to apologize for this reason (motive) for being here let me know. I don’t think anyone has much ground to reproach me though.

[phyllo]

You can come here for whatever reason you want. And you don't need my permission or approval.

The "spiritual error" and "severe disorder" are interesting subjects. I wonder if you have a good understanding or grasp of it. I haven't studied your posts in depth so I can't be certain about this but some of your posts come off as stereotypical and disconnected.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The "spiritual error" and "severe disorder" are interesting subjects.

Why do you say that? I think I know what I mean by those terms. What do they mean to you? What is your interest in them?

[Iwannaplato]

1) not good enough reason to reject the central doctrines. I might assume that you have a prejudiced view on the doctrines. Have you studied them in depth yourself?

The point is not necessarily to reject the central doctrines on this point alone. However it fits with what I think is a metaphysical bias, against sex, and any system or belief + organization that does not address this issue and consider that it's coming out of the metaphysics is going to have other problems also. In a sense I could call it a form of decadence and decay that is connected to the metaphysics. I know it isn't necessarily connected to the central doctrine you focus on. However if we are talking about having the Catholic Church be the restorative force for society, that organization is not coming just with grace and the incarnation.

2) yes, there is no way around that. But there is also a description of that debt which makes it, I think, easier to understand.

Well, the way around it would be not to have it. I think it's a toxic message and is part of the CCs incarnation package.

3) extraordinarily positive things were brought into European existence because of the Church. These, naturally, are not part of your knowledge-base.

Why are they not part of my knowledge base? I am focused on objections to the CC becoming a central power again in general in the West. I am not writing a treatise on the CC influence in general. The issue you thought was interesting was why only one person here would be open to the CC retaking this role. So, I am giving reasons I think they would be resistant to that, including my own reasons and presenting these in my own way of thinking about it - others might present the same objections in different language. There's no need to assume my ignorance of things I am not writing about.

4) that's an extension of point 2)

Yes, they are connected. It's not the message of a loving father.

5) you'd have to explain more. This could be taken in different ways.

the immanent is devalued, the transcendent is given the prime value. This arises in a number of ways. Number six is related to this. I think the influence of the Abrahamic religions added to a sense of distance from nature - nature as the dark other - that has led to problems with how we treat the environment, to a sense of alienation from our home, to not understanding how a good and regular relationship with other species (plants and animals in their natural ecosystems) is actually part of our mental health. The Abrahamic religions have made us strangers here.

[5-1/2) Does anyone wonder what nefarious things Harry Baird is up to?!?]

I believe you've mentioned him before and I assume it's not the actor you mean. You can link me to a post of yours where the relevant nefariousness is described. Or let me know here what you mean.

6) false assertion. You have not been exposed to the full spectrum of Catholic doctrines.

It's not a false assertion. Large, complicated belief systems/organizations like the CC can do contradictory things, but given Jesus' separation of church and state and also realms of value, the average person is taught by the CC to consider this realm fallen. The eyes are focused on the long term prize which is not here. The CC itself has obviously been political in a variety of open and hidden ways. The issue is of course complex and there are phenomena like LIberation Theology in Latin America. The CC does a lot of moral influencing through a variety of relationships with secular organizations. But the average parishioner is being discourage implicitly from the political. Of course many engage, often on social issues.

7) it is not at all hard to conceive of hellish experiences brought about by error. And if the soul is taken as *immortal* then a time in hellish realms can be easily understood. What is very hard to accept is eternal punishment.

Yes, from a loving father no less. It is a threat that undermines people's well being at a fundamental level.

8.) that seems a modern trope and I am not sure if I agree that Catholic doctrines create imbalance. In fact I am uncertain what you mean.

We've got a male deity creating the universe. You have him coming as a male incarnation. The Holy Spirit is neutral as far as I can tell. That's unbalanced. I do appreciate the role that Mary gets in the CC as a kind of emergence from that imbalance towards balance - though her greatness will always be coupled with accepting a lot of things (yes, kindness and mercy and in a sense almost an advocate through which one can perhaps find more mercy than via the male deities(deity), but it's still out of balance. There is no equivalent female portion of divinity to God/Jesus.

And yet people asking about your views seemed to annoy you.

Only when there is a stubborn instance or something that seems like a demand.
[/quote]You reacted categorically, as if it was odd that your ideas were what I was asking about. Then I read that you have come to clarify your own views.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The point is not necessarily to reject the central doctrines on this point alone. However it fits with what I think is a metaphysical bias, against sex, and any system or belief + organization that does not address this issue and consider that it's coming out of the metaphysics is going to have other problems also. In a sense I could call it a form of decadence and decay that is connected to the metaphysics. I know it isn't necessarily connected to the central doctrine you focus on. However if we are talking about having the Catholic Church be the restorative force for society, that organization is not coming just with grace and the incarnation.

It is a bias against sex outside of marriage. I.e. fornication. The larger issue revolves around a religious philosophy where marriage is one of the seven sacraments. I certainly would not say that the general regulations are not strict especially given the lack of restraints of today (and which I lived as a California radical) but, overall, they seem sound to me.

There are far more extreme consequences when regulations of sexual expression are no longer conceived as being necessary. If there are consequences for living in accord with sexual ethics regulations they do not compare with the damage done by living without them.

In a sense I could call it a form of decadence and decay that is connected to the metaphysics.

You’ll have to explain.

However if we are talking about having the Catholic Church be the restorative force for society, that organization is not coming just with grace and the incarnation

Dawson refers to Christianity generally as what can “renew human life”. That means an entire program. What that program is is not the topic of his book. But what Catholicism brings in the holistic doctrines of the social teachings. And I will say that their internal logic is sound.

My understanding at this point is that the full picture of what this entails must be seen and known before it can be judged. That’s where I am at in any case.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, the way around it [doctrine of original sin] would be not to have it. I think it's a toxic message and is part of the CCs incarnation package.

That original sin is removed (not sure of the right word) at baptism. In this sense the Christian path is entirely new because the person is new at a fundamental spiritual level. That ‘cleansing away’ is also part of a holistic program.

Since it is very hard (impossible) for me to believe in the Fall story as it is presented, I personally take it on another level.

[Iwannaplato]

It is a bias against sex outside of marriage. I.e. fornication. The larger issue revolves around a religious philosophy where marriage is one of the seven sacraments. I certainly would not say that the general regulations are not strict especially given the lack of restraints of today (and which I lived as a California radical) but, overall, they seem sound to me.

Perhaps it need not go beyond the prohibition against extra-marital sex, but it does go beyond that. The Catholic Culture puts down the physical/sexual - not without Biblical contradictions and other practices that do not do this. Priests are celibate, the way the physical and the spiritual are contrasted and desires and bodies and well, the world in general are fallen and dangerous. It's not a coincidence that there have been so many judgment aimed at the physical. Yes, I understand the concerns about the excesses, but there is an implicit judgment of the physical/sexual/desire in general in Catholicism, especially if any of this is openly present or seems to be in women. There will be great resistance in society to having the old control and judgment based on this come back - in those parts of society where it is not still present that is.

In a sense I could call it a form of decadence and decay that is connected to the metaphysics.

You’ll have to explain.

Once you judge sex in those ways, it leads to practices that are excessive and even twisted. It's not a coincidence that there was such a high incidence of sexual abuse by priests - this flowed out of the suppression and judgment of sex. For example.

Dawson refers to Christianity generally as what can “renew human life”. That means an entire program. What that program is is not the topic of his book. But what Catholicism brings in the holistic doctrines of the social teachings. And I will say that their internal logic is sound.

Without knowing what this entire program is I am left with what was before and the scriptures.

[phyllo]

The "spiritual error" and "severe disorder" are interesting subjects.

Why do you say that? I think I know what I mean by those terms. What do they mean to you? What is your interest in them?

'Spiritual error' is the abandonment of god and spirituality in favor of atheism and materialism.

'Severe disorder' is the adoption of goals, attitudes and philosophies which are counterproductive and destructive to individuals and society.

I'm interested because I don't want a decline in individuals and society. Which requires identifying the problems and solutions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

6) false assertion. You have not been exposed to the full spectrum of Catholic doctrines.

It's not a false assertion. Large, complicated belief systems/organizations like the CC can do contradictory things, but given Jesus' separation of church and state and also realms of value, the average person is taught by the CC to consider this realm fallen. The eyes are focused on the long term prize which is not here. The CC itself has obviously been political in a variety of open and hidden ways. The issue is of course complex and there are phenomena like LIberation Theology in Latin America. The CC does a lot of moral influencing through a variety of relationships with secular organizations. But the average parishioner is being discourage implicitly from the political. Of course many engage, often on social issues.

I believe that I understand what you are saying, and how you formed this view, and all that I can tell you that as one who has made (is making) an effort to read the actual Encyclicals and the theological books where the social doctrines are expressed, that you have a skewed view. It is not entirely wrong though, but it seems skewed to me. Some elements might be clarified to good effect.

[One of my original interests was Liberation Theology by the way. Back in my university days. I visited and associated with an Italian and a Argentine priest involved in that work in a remote Chiapas village.]

[Harbal]

It is a bias against sex outside of marriage. I.e. fornication. The larger issue revolves around a religious philosophy where marriage is one of the seven sacraments. I certainly would not say that the general regulations are not strict especially given the lack of restraints of today (and which I lived as a California radical) but, overall, they seem sound to me.

There are far more extreme consequences when regulations of sexual expression are no longer conceived as being necessary. If there are consequences for living in accord with sexual ethics regulations they do not compare with the damage done by living without them.

But surely you don't object to sex between people in a relationship, even if it is not a particularly long lasting relationship, do you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

4) that's an extension of point 2)

Yes, they are connected. It's not the message of a loving father.

Since I could never approach the Christian metaphysics from a personalized perspective, the notion of a *loving father* never made sense to me. Or it did not seem a sufficient picture. [As a point of contrast, the proper relationship to Krishna in Vaishnavism is never depicted a father-child relationship to the Supreme Being. One is a servant, a friend or a lover (i.e. involved in an eternal loving relationship].

I still take metaphysical doctrines abstractly, Greco-philosophically if you wish. In fact Platonically. So I never saw the entire doctrinal corpus as being something handed down from a father to a child. I see it as a difficult, rationally conceived and demanding ethical set which can be taken, and can be expressed, in philosophical terms. I mean basically discursive terms.

It requires a cosmological picture to conceive of a Fall. A movement, a punishment or a consequence really, that is imposed on all people and really on the planet. That original sin in the Medieval picture actually brought with it the degradation of the entire world, which meant the Cosmos. And when man is restored, the world -- actually the Cosmos -- will be restored. These are facts about the Christian conceptions. All activities are restprative activities, similar to Tikkum Olam.

I should be pretty clear that it is for me next-to-impossible to *believe* in literal terms that there was an original error by our first parents. And this extends to nearly every element of the Story. However, when I take the meaning on another level -- as a reference to something else and not sufficiently encapsulated by the picture -- I can work with the idea.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But surely you don't object to sex between people in a relationship, even if it is not a particularly long lasting relationship, do you?

This is not about what I object to or don't. It is best to see it as an examination of Dawson's (and others) view that the entirety of Christian doctrines will have a salutary effect.

But I have another point of contention with you Harbal! I was just on the phone with the Ticklecocks. Yes, there is a Ticklecock family who owns the Carnival. The report I received from Mr Ticklecock is that you barged your way in to the chamber of the young Miss Ticklecock and not only did you expose yourself to her but you made off with Miss Ticklecock's change purse! How do you justify the dishonor, Harbal? I must ask that you resolve to return it and to apologize! And you lied to the entire forum saying that you stayed home and *washed your hair*.

[Alexis Jacobi]

5) you'd have to explain more. This could be taken in different ways.

the immanent is devalued, the transcendent is given the prime value. This arises in a number of ways. Number six is related to this. I think the influence of the Abrahamic religions added to a sense of distance from nature -- nature as the dark other -- that has led to problems with how we treat the environment, to a sense of alienation from our home, to not understanding how a good and regular relationship with other species (plants and animals in their natural ecosystems) is actually part of our mental health. The Abrahamic religions have made us strangers here.

One element of my own backgrounding, odd as it is, was through Shakespeare studies and study of the 17th century worldview. So yes, the *world* was indeed conceived as the cesspool of the cosmos. Over us there is a world of light and light-beings (angels, the stars, those harmonious spheres) but down at the bottom, or near the bottom, many dangerous and deadly things condensed.

And the same understanding was applied to man and to an anthropology: man, his body, his spiritual self in that body, reflected the cosmos. So there is an earthly elemental aspect (the body, the desires and tendencies of the body and its needs) but as well a means to access the higher elements -- the angelical world.

These are pictures that still remain in our language -- certainly in our metaphysics and, for example, in poetry and theology.

The Abrahamic religions have made us strangers here.

I think this could be said and is coherent in a sense, but you seem to place a great deal of emphasis on it, as part of a larger rejection.

[Alexis Jacobi]

7) it is not at all hard to conceive of hellish experiences brought about by error. And if the soul is taken as *immortal* then a time in hellish realms can be easily understood. What is very hard to accept is eternal punishment.

Yes, from a loving father no less. It is a threat that undermines people's well being at a fundamental level.

The way I have worked through the idea is through another religious concept: the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita: the divine and the demonic natures. It (the metaphysical question, the existential issue) resolves to a choice: we either align ourselves with *the godly* or we align ourselves with *the demonic*. We either go up in terms of what sort of world we incarnate into, and what problems we face, or we make choices that bring us down into greater levels of *cesspool*. Obviously, the Vedics conceive of many lives lived and Christianity does away with that notion.

My own view of Christian metaphysics is that it is a sharpened and unforgiving picture.

Instead of saying *well-being* I might agree to *easy-going sense of security*. The picture is one of dramatic consequence for what one does, or does not do, in this life. Things may well be just like that in reality. And just as a *loving father* cannot save his child from the consequences of his choices -- something all parents understand -- the metaphysical rules cannot be bent.

Except do note that Catholicism does provide a means: the sacrament of confession. Anyone can lift the burden (of any bad act) by becoming contrite. So this somewhat undermines your view that *the loving father* is ultimately cruel. There is a way out.