Christianity

[Belinda]

And why are you here?

I make it clear all the time, and I did again just recently. I am very interested in the cultural-political shift that is on-going. I am interested in, I became interested in, ultra-conservatism: the absolute metaphysical version of ur-conservatism. That led me to a consideration of “essences” (like quintessences). Nietzsche (principally Genealogy of Morals) had a large effect on me, as did Richard Weaver. Richard Weaver deals on moments in the ideational realm where missteps are taken. I am therefore, really interested in missteps and, naturally, the corrective movement — which certainly involves metaphysics.

"The corrective movement" is usually called reactionary. You appear to be a reactionary Conservative.
There is no quintessence in this relative world . Jesus Christ is believed and trusted by Christians to be the unique and embodied quintessence of good. Alexis' choice of metaphysical explanation is ripe for hijacking by reactionary Conservatives who claim to own the quintessence of good whereas political liberals' multicultural bias is less conceited. Vanity, Alexis, is not the way to go.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Good luck. I see no missteps, no corrective movement. Just bio-psycho-sociological determinism. Including in Christianity. Metaphysics just reinforces that.

You make the weirdest statements!

I assume (?) that you pay no attention to cultural issues?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Good luck. I see no missteps, no corrective movement. Just bio-psycho-sociological determinism. Including in Christianity. Metaphysics just reinforces that.

You make the weirdest statements!

I assume (?) that you pay no attention to cultural issues?

I don't understand your response Alexis. What's weird? I'm a materialist determinist. Metaphysics is what we make up above that.

Why would you assume that? Liberal progressivism is dead due to our conservative moral taste receptors winning out finally.

What Belinda said.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The corrective movement" is usually called reactionary. You appear to be a reactionary Conservative.

No. That perspective is actually one constructed by a specific radicalism (less concerned about essences, absolutes, strict (er) rules and boundaries). Ur-conservatism defines its metaphysics as “normal” “necessary” “good” “life-affirming”.

And I am not “one of them” necessarily. I grew up in California radicalism. I merely said that I became interested in their philosophical (and metaphysical) positions.

Correctives, according to them (and now according to me) are not best described by the term “reactionary”. Words like “grounding” “regrounding” and other such terms are better.

In a Nietzschean sense it would also entail self-initiated and directed explorations based on “recovery of self”.

There is no quintessence in this relative world . Jesus Christ is believed and trusted by Christians to be the unique and embodied quintessence of good. Alexis' choice of metaphysical explanation is ripe for hijacking by reactionary Conservatives who claim to own the quintessence of good whereas political liberals' multicultural bias is less conceited. Vanity, Alexis, is not the way to go.

You are right! Because quintessences are purely metaphysical and grasped intellectually (Intellectus).

“Jesus Christ” is Logos. But Logos is not Jesus Christ. NT Christianity is completely insufficient (seen from the perspective of the fuller possibilities of rigorous metaphysical positions). “Jesus Christ” confuses a great deal that requires clarification. (These are my own views).

Jesus Christ has no phallus. This seems like a stupid thing to say but it is important (in my view).

More honestly (?) Jesus and Mary are better grasped if understood to be very old god-forms: Osiris and Isis.

These are symbols but they have all sorts of resonances psychically, spiritually. “Meaning” coalesces around them.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why would you assume that? Liberal progressivism is dead due to our conservative moral taste receptors winning out finally.

You mean like gay parades and stuff like that? I don’t understand. Did they cancel them over there in England?!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Why would you assume that? Liberal progressivism is dead due to our conservative moral taste receptors winning out finally.

You mean like gay parades and stuff like that? I don’t understand. Did they cancel them over there in England?!

Immigration is the biggest political issue in the western world. Or hadn't you noticed? Our liberal-left of centre, right wing Labour, government will fall to a populist neo-fascist in 4 years time because it can't stop the boat people. And it's trying, hard. That's our culture. What's yours?

[MikeNovack]

Immigration is the biggest political issue in the western world. Or hadn't you noticed? Our liberal-left of centre, right wing Labour, government will fall to a populist neo-fascist in 4 years time because it can't stop the boat people. And it's trying, hard. That's our culture. What's yours?

Why we need an Environmental ethics section to the forum/

I predict as the ecological crash gets going, and the hordes of displaced humans orders of magnitude larger, you WILLtry to stop them. Nor willthat be a matter of which parties in government.

Note that with the volume you have now COULD easily stop them given the defensible water border.But even your no-fascists NOW lack the stomach for accordan wire beaches with machine gun emplacements for those that got by the patrol craft ramming boats.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why is immigration such an issue? And who is trying to stop it? The Liberal Left? Or those you refer to as fascist? I really do not understand.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You guys are INTENSE! Setting ip machine gun nests and surrounding then with concertina wire. Holy cow.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis' choice of metaphysical explanation is ripe for hijacking by reactionary Conservatives who claim to own the quintessence of good whereas political liberals' multicultural bias is less conceited.

Vanity, Alexis, is not the way to go.

Obviously, you touch upon a very relevant issue. Battles over valuations, value-sets, within a context of social concerns. There will be hijackings.

But at the very least the point I make (more properly the issues I try to raise) is that in contemporary society, and perhaps over the last 15 years quite noticeably, the standard Liberal Order (postwar) is being intensely challenged.

The ideas that impel it — though it is not monolithic — can be traced back to certain specific thinkers.

The Radical Left (or Radical Communists to use a very general term) really perform the hijacking. That is really there modus operandi. They are experts at ideological subversion.

No, no, these processes have to be described with different terms.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Why is immigration such an issue? And who is trying to stop it? The Liberal Left? Or those you refer to as fascist? I really do not understand.

Are you resident in the United States? Or W. Europe? UK? Denmark? Greece? Italy? Netherlands? Sweden? Belgium? France? Germany?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You guys are INTENSE! Setting ip machine gun nests and surrounding then with concertina wire. Holy cow.

Sorry?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I came here several years ago, labouring under the impression that if I were going to find intelligent skeptics anywhere, it was most likely to be on a philosophy site.

My impression? You never actually explained what the purpose of Christian religious conversion is or should be. In essence, the message you did bring was entirely inadequate. Your purpose was to get into spats with thorough unbelievers apparently. What an odd motivation!

I on the other hand reach right down into their souls and cause the Golden Glow to shimmer!

Even Wilbur! Yes even he!

[Belinda]

The corrective movement" is usually called reactionary. You appear to be a reactionary Conservative.

No. That perspective is actually one constructed by a specific radicalism (less concerned about essences, absolutes, strict (er) rules and boundaries). Ur-conservatism defines its metaphysics as “normal” “necessary” “good” “life-affirming”.

And I am not “one of them” necessarily. I grew up in California radicalism. I merely said that I became interested in their philosophical (and metaphysical) positions.

Correctives, according to them (and now according to me) are not best described by the term “reactionary”. Words like “grounding” “regrounding” and other such terms are better.

In a Nietzschean sense it would also entail self-initiated and directed explorations based on “recovery of self”.

There is no quintessence in this relative world . Jesus Christ is believed and trusted by Christians to be the unique and embodied quintessence of good. Alexis' choice of metaphysical explanation is ripe for hijacking by reactionary Conservatives who claim to own the quintessence of good whereas political liberals' multicultural bias is less conceited. Vanity, Alexis, is not the way to go.

You are right! Because quintessences are purely metaphysical and grasped intellectually (Intellectus).

“Jesus Christ” is Logos. But Logos is not Jesus Christ. NT Christianity is completely insufficient (seen from the perspective of the fuller possibilities of rigorous metaphysical positions). “Jesus Christ” confuses a great deal that requires clarification. (These are my own views).

Jesus Christ has no phallus. This seems like a stupid thing to say but it is important (in my view).

More honestly (?) Jesus and Mary are better grasped if understood to be very old god-forms: Osiris and Isis.

These are symbols but they have all sorts of resonances psychically, spiritually. “Meaning” coalesces around them.

Of course JC had a phallus! He was born not created . He was subject to death like the rest of us. He was a man . JC had to cope with a nasty political milieu. like many other men of his time and place in Palestine of the Roman Empire.

Osiris and Isis were never understood to have walked about or been incarnate .

I think when you say " Jesus and Mary are better grasped if understood to be very old god-forms: Osiris and Isis. " you refer to psychological archetypes.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Oh God...