Sex and Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

One basic, essential “metaphysical fact” is that Finite bodies have an end, but that which possesses and uses the body, is infinite, illimitable, eternal, indestructible.

Obviously you could not say else (at least I do not think you would), and certainly this is the very basis of a metaphysical stance (in life, to existence) but in your scheme the idea, the reality, is shrunken and reduced, it perhaps it is better stated that you “possess” the notion, concept or fact, and imagine that you control or possess all that ramifies from it (which transcends both the Judaic and Christian revelation).

The idea, if it is real and valid, must be revivified or “awakened” as a guiding fact with all sorts of ramifications.

[Immanuel Can]

I invite you to go ahead and describe this "problem" of "metaphysics" that you seem to allege you've solved and I've allegedly failed to solve. I think everybody would find that interesting.

I would not use the word “solved”, that is too final,...

Then tell us what you think you know, that you imagine I do not. That should be simple enough.

the Christian-Judaic system absolutely must be transcended,

Wait. "Must" by what imperative? What belief compels you to believe there's something wrong with Christian and Jewish ethics? And how does one "transcend" an ethic? What gives you this confidence, this "absolute" mustness you profess here?

It seems obvious one can reject an ethic, or one can recognize an ethic. Fair enough. We all do each. But "transcend" means, "take to a higher plane." That calls for the question, "what is 'higher' than Judeo-Christian ethics, and what makes it 'higher'? Unless you already presupposes you have an ethical basis that is "higher" than those you're criticizing, you'd be unable to criticize them at all, since you'd have no ground to stand on; so what are you presupposing as your "higher" basis?

These questions cannot be dodged with a few rhetorical flourishes, of course. And they aren't simply obvious to everybody. You'll need to spell them out, if we're to know whether or not to agree with you.

[Immanuel Can]

One basic, essential “metaphysical fact” is that Finite bodies have an end, but that which possesses and uses the body, is infinite, illimitable, eternal, indestructible.

"Finite" by definition means "has an boundary, limit or end," so that's merely tautological, of course. But the second claim, the one about "that which uses the body"...how do you know that something is "using" the body, and what is it? And on what grounds do you assert this thing, whatever it is, to be "infinite, etc."?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your use of the “we” is curious. Have you been elected by a group as their spokesman? Why do you use the third person plural when, at least as I see it, it is your own self asking the question?

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Finite" by definition means "has an boundary, limit or end," so that's merely tautological, of course. But the second claim, the one about "that which uses the body"...how do you know that something is "using" the body, and what is it? And on what grounds do you assert this thing, whatever it is, to be "infinite, etc."?

If the soul is understood to be eternal, as I assume you believe it is, then it implies existence both prior to life in a body (through birth) and continued existence once the body has perished.

When you refer to “something using the body” are you in doubt as to what that thing is? I am confused when you ask me what ‘it’ is.

Is your question How can I know if “soul” exists?

The notion of the soul as eternal and indestructible (this can only be known by way of intuition) is foundational to a “true” metaphysical doctrine, and as such transcends Christian belief specifically. Therefore it is a basis discussing transcendent existence and transcendent values. And therefore a proper base for speaking with modern men who, it seems, adopt other stances. For this reason I brought it up. Try to understand this.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What belief compels you to believe there's something wrong with Christian and Jewish ethics?

That is one thing (about Christianity generally) that I do not discount. To transcend the Christian structure or “picture” as I call it should not mean that much in it need be rejected. It is the limiting picture that needs be transcended.

[Immanuel Can]

Your use of the “we” is curious. Have you been elected by a group as their spokesman? Why do you use the third person plural when, at least as I see it, it is your own self asking the question?

Oh, that's easy.

You always seem to be trying to talk past me or over me, rather than to me, advising some speculative or spectoral others of what you think of me, rather than addressing me personally. So you can't be thinking of this as a two-person conversation, clearly...because then, there'd be no audience, and nobody at all to whom you could be speaking.

So I'm just embracing your assumption that you have an audience. Maybe you don't, but I'm taking your posture at face value.

[Immanuel Can]

"Finite" by definition means "has an boundary, limit or end," so that's merely tautological, of course. But the second claim, the one about "that which uses the body"...how do you know that something is "using" the body, and what is it? And on what grounds do you assert this thing, whatever it is, to be "infinite, etc."?

If the soul is understood to be eternal, as I assume you believe it is, then it implies existence both prior to life in a body (through birth) and continued existence once the body has perished.

No, it wouldn't have to imply pre-existence of that sort. All it would have to imply is that a soul, once created, cannot any longer be destroyed...not that it always existed.

When you refer to “something using the body” are you in doubt as to what that thing is? I am confused when you ask me what ‘it’ is.

I'm asking about the identity of the "something." You now say "soul." Okay. I have no way of knowing that what you mean by "soul" is what I would mean by using the same word. And if you suppose "soul" to entail pre-existence, then I would have to say it's not.

The notion of the soul as eternal and indestructible (this can only be known by way of intuition)

Well, I'd say that's the same as to say, not known at all. It's to say, imaginary.

...is foundational to a “true” metaphysical doctrine,

How do you know it's "true"? "By way of intuition?"

and as such transcends Christian belief

Again, this word: "transcends." You have to justify it, though. It's not something anybody can just automatically grant you. You need to show how you're entitled to it, and why they should think you're right about being "transcendent" relative to the transcended. In other words, what is this "higher" position from which you draw the conclusion that you are "transcending" Christian belief?

[Immanuel Can]

What belief compels you to believe there's something wrong with Christian and Jewish ethics?

That is one thing (about Christianity generally) that I do not discount. To transcend the Christian structure or “picture” as I call it should not mean that much in it need be rejected. It is the limiting picture that needs be transcended.

Same problem. From what viewpoint do you launch the assertion that the Christian ethical view is "limiting" or "needs" to be "transcended"? It's not something anybody should grant you for free, you know.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You always seem to be trying to talk past me or over me, rather than to me …

Yes, in a sense you are right. And this is because of your thorough fixity in a limited doctrinal position.

In that sense I talk through you. To change that read carefully what I write and respond fulsomely. That will allow the con-versation you (seem to?) want.

So I'm just embracing your assumption that you have an audience. Maybe you don't, but I'm taking your posture at face value.

As it is a public forum it must be assumed that numerous will read. Yet when you ask a question it is you-singular asking it, no other. Unless you adopt the royal we …

[Immanuel Can]

As it is a public forum it must be assumed that numerous will read.

As that is your assumption, I will honour it. And that means that you don't simply owe "me" justification for your claims, but you owe it to all whom you assume to be your audience: hence, "we," as well.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, it wouldn't have to imply pre-existence of that sort. All it would have to imply is that a soul, once created, cannot any longer be destroyed...not that it always existed.

Oh this is where, I think, your present, determined and rigid metaphysical picture does not serve you. And please remember: I am asserting that the system that you operate within, and which you regard as being an absolute and thorough view (of our metaphysical reality in this realm of being) is inadequate to the task, and therefore must be revisioned, re-explained, and in fact understood anew.

My purpose is not to get bogged down with you in what I have come to understand as your practiced and perfected tactics of avoiding alternate and expansive views. You must remember and hold in your mind that every person who encounters you comes away with the knowledge that he is dealing with a stubborn religious fanatic. And when you realize this, or consider it, you may also understand why it is that (in this case) Evangelical Christians are so annoying.

What I propose, and considering that it is the same forum but a new phase of that forum, is an attempt to demonstrate other, viable possibilities to be able to understand Christian metaphysics in what amounts to a different way. As if examination of it from a different angle will shed light on what is solid and valuable within that metaphysical system, and as a result of this realization also the realization that there are valuable things to be honored and maintained. Please note again the following: You have been 'preaching the Gospel' for over a decade and you have not made headway with a single person!

Now, I know and I fully understand that any suggestion I make must be resisted tooth and claw by you. That is a given and I accept this. Your reactions will be, as are the reactions of standard, indoctrinated Evangelicals, quite predictable. I have no problem with this and as you have pushed me to express I (sort of) talk through you and not so much with you.

No, it wouldn't have to imply pre-existence of that sort. All it would have to imply is that a soul, once created, cannot any longer be destroyed...not that it always existed.

This is a very good place to start, in my view. First: It is impossible for any one of us to determine with scientific certainty even if the 'soul' exists. Second, any statement you or I or anyone would make about it is (let's say) speculative or intuited. Right there we have encountered the first block which nearly every philosopher on this forum will point out. For most it is insurmountable because to assert something as real, as in the sciences, it must be proved. And there is no way to 'prove' the existence of 'soul' and then, from that point, all else that pertains to what is metaphysical to this life. Therefore we have to make another statement: The only way to gain any sort of 'proof' is through experience motivated and moved by intuition. And right there we face another giant wall: How in the name of Heaven can 'intuition' be trusted in any sense comparable to that of science-proofs? At this point again every philosopher-listener will shear away. He will say: "You are asking something that, to me, sounds crazy-making. Where you suggest I might go, I cannot go."

The 'proof', if you will, within the language model of metaphysical description, that the soul is eternal, is linked to the core and principle metaphysical notion that God is eternal. And the soul -- I refer to Vedic notions which are far more developed than simplistic Christian metaphysical notions -- because it is part-and-parcel of God is, as God is, also eternal. That eternal nature is something 'believed in' by you as a Christian, but oddly only as it pertains to the future. For this reason I make this suggestion: Add to this notion the possibility of the eternal existence, both forward and backward, of that part of each of us metaphysics defines as 'the soul'. It really does change everything.

If I recognize that I am, within this manifested world, an eternal entity, then I have to clarify just what in me is in fact 'eternal'. That is a metaphysical and existential challenge, don't you think? The implication is that there is something essential in me that makes me me. That is also to say, or to note, or to propose and to suggest, that I am not merely a physical or material confluence of circumstances, or a biological computer that will dissolve away when the hardware fails to function. And yes, that is another extremely difficult hurdle for those raised up in the philosophy of physicalism that in so many arenas dominates our mode of viewing reality, being, our world, life and also action in this world.

Again I am working to some degree within the metaphysical principles that are foundational to your system of belief, but I am attempting to present it in a way that does not in any sense lead to enthrallment by one particular and peculiar *system* -- as is the system that you, like a hermit crab, live within: your smallish shell which is impenetrable to any other idea and which must diminish or refute other systems ands ways of seeing and explaining things metaphysical.

Immanuel: I know that no part of what I have written here can even be registered by you! You have demonstrated time and again that you are 'deaf for all that you have ears'. But remember: In this present age when everything surrounds us that will soon, or is now, collapsing in over us (all these rumors of what are presented as diabolical intelligences and powers that are gaining tremendous power, and that is just one) that I can suppose it true that getting to a 'metaphysical base' that is and represents a sort of safety (I will not use your word: salvation) is not a minor issue in our day. So it is for this reason that self-knowledge and an encounter with our own 'soul' (and eternal existence) is at the very least important. That is, I could present arguments (suggestions) as to why this is important. To discover and to find a way to abide in 'eternal truth' and not mere 'mutable truths' of our physical and biological being.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As that is your assumption, I will honour it.

You are a prince!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm asking about the identity of the "something." You now say "soul." Okay. I have no way of knowing that what you mean by "soul" is what I would mean by using the same word. And if you suppose "soul" to entail pre-existence, then I would have to say it's not.

My suggestion? If you need clarification about these ideas I can only suggest to you that you begin to investigate their possibility by the examination of other written materials and by 'men of experience' who have themselves investigated these issues. I will not be able to provide for you some verbal formula that will produce *realization* in you. And here is an important point: Neither will all your preachments! The reason? Our minds have been trained to accept only the knowledge that comes from those methodologies we really feel give us knowledge.

And for this reason I am attempting to explain, using different language formula, different routes that an intellect might take when confronting (in your case) rigid religious fundamentalism.

Well, I'd say that's the same as to say, not known at all. It's to say, imaginary.

Of course, Immanuel! Because you have, hold, present and explain the sole 'truth-system' that can define what is truthful! It is the Cat Bird's Seat par excellence. And everyone who encounters you soon learns this.

But the positive aspect of your intractability, in my view, is that yo definitely have backgrounding in Christian apologetics. But, in your case, it acts like a neurotic shell. And I am, in relation to you, an armor piercing shell. But not to penetrate your impenetrability (you will not change in this life) but only to suggest alternatives (within this Occidental philosophical environment).

Clear?

How do you know it's "true"? "By way of intuition?

I would answer "yes". That which is metaphysical to the hard realities of the physical and material world can be presented in verbal formula, that is true, but cannot be understood except by intuitional reception. I think that what this means is that some bit of knowledge stimulates and lights up something that is there latently. That is the idea behind intellectus (as I have pointed out a dozen times). Intellectus is a Latin term pertinent to Catholic and Christian thought, true, but I suggest that in it there is a great deal that 'makes sense' (and can be known intuitionally).

Again, this word: "transcends." You have to justify it, though. It's not something anybody can just automatically grant you. You need to show how you're entitled to it, and why they should think you're right about being "transcendent" relative to the transcended. In other words, what is this "higher" position from which you draw the conclusion that you are "transcending" Christian belief?

What I would rather do is go into the forest and find that tall and straight tree that will be suitable for the stake upon which I will immolate you!

You are a funny funny man! You are nevertheless (or despite your annoying nature) a great delight to me. And I believe I can demonstrate how you can become, for the annoyed, a great source of delight to others as well!

When I refer to 'transcending Christian belief' I am referring to transcending the intellectual limitations that, to all appearances, have you captured and enthralled. In this sense it is *you* that can be, and must be, transcended. The way to transcendence, in this context, is through offering a more expansive view -- another level of description, another verbal avenue.

Is this getting any clearer?

[RickLewis]

As that is your assumption, I will honour it.

You are a prince!

I doubt very many are reading right now, as the forum has only just re-opened. However, I am reading it, as I find these questions interesting. I probably won't comment on the substance of your disagreement though as I have to rush off and do something else in a minute.

I think talking "past" the other person is extremely common in discussions of religion (and more sadly, in discussions of philosophy too). But if we don't communicate successfully then there is not much point in posting our ideas. Therefore I think that if we realise that communication has failed, then we just have to try harder. Of course, it is always nice if the other person makes a special, extraordinary effort to understand us, but none of us have a right to count on that. People are always busy, they always have their own notions. In the end, if we want to be understood, then it is up to us to work out how to engage others and how to make what we write both clear and interesting, rather than just a duty to read. Telling people to read (unreferenced) other written materials or ask (unnamed) men of experienced is probably a bit of a cop-out. In the end, it is always up to us.