Sex and Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

Yes, I see your point. I am not closed to explaining what I understand of those materials referred to, but my view is that if these issues (i.e. the issue of ‘ultimate existence’ and other important questions) are presented as essential, it can also be seen as a cop-out use the tactic of asking endless questions about topics that the aware religionist should be aware of. And undoubtedly IC is an aware religionist (though relatively prejudiced).

I could reference the references but I thought it best to try and establish the primary base of both IC’s and my own “metaphysical systems”. The realness of “the soul” and the factor of “eternal being” (essential in Vedanta, my area of interest).

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Pleas explain your own "non-rigid metaphysical picture," so we can see how it's serving your argument here.

...your practiced and perfected tactics of avoiding alternate and expansive views.

Not only am I not "avoiding" it here, I've three times now asked you to explain it. But you don't.

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.

Well, it was the word you chose. If you don't know it exists, that's an odd thing to do, don't you think?

Second, any statement you or I or anyone would make about it is (let's say) speculative or intuited.

Not necessarily. If there were (let me grant you, merely for argument's sake) a Book that had some things to say about things like the Soul, and if that were dispensed by the Deity, there would be no such difficulty, obviously.

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.

If you don't believe in God, or in His revelation of facts about the soul, then there's no grounds to believe in it at all, that I know of. As you say, science will not help, because science deals only with physical things, and the soul is notoriously not composed of the material. Rationality won't help, because rationality requires premises, which require something established and known from which to begin...and you're saying there's no such thing. So there are no premises from which a logical deduction could proceed.

I refer to Vedic notions

Why? If there is no divine revelation, Vedic notions are a useless as any other notions, all of which must be imaginary.

If I recognize that I am,

Well, you need more: you need to be able to say precisely WHAT you are. You have already insisted you're an entity with both a body and a soul -- the latter "using," you said, the former. But on what basis do you say so? This remains unclear.

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.

Well, I would assent to that. And, since I believe in God, in His self-revelation, and hence, also in the soul, I have grounds to assent. But I can't see what you're standing on: what gives you, from your metaphysic, any confidence to believe in any such thing, far less to deduce that it's "eternal."

After all, we all realize there was a time when we did not exist. We began to exist only when we were created, conceived and then birthed. Before that, neither history nor we ourselves had any consciousness of us, so the burden would certainly be on anybody who believed in a pre-existent soul to explain what warrant he had for assuming it. It's certainly devoid of any evidence at all.

Immanuel: I know that no part of what I have written here can even be registered by you!

On the contrary: as anybody can see, I understand what you are saying, and so well that I can point to the significant holes that remain in it. Can you fill the holes, so far, in your own metaphysic, and present it as a complete one?

I guess we'll see.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

This is a very wise observation, and I agree. I shall endeavour to take that wisdom to heart, as we proceed.

Thank you, Rick.

[reasonvemotion]

Alexiev wrote:

There's more. I recommend the article (I'm not sure if non- subscribers can read the link). I'd be interested to read what the Christians on this forum think.

The All Seeing Eye depicted in the article is an immediate red flag.
This symbol, which is the Eye of Providence, is not merely a historical emblem, but is used by the Occult, Freemasonry and Jesuit-led organisations to represent Luciferianism rather than the Christian representation of God's omniscience.

To begin with, this article by S C Cornell (who is obviously a Catholic) blatantly misinterprets/ignores distinct laws in the Scriptures.
She writes, "As far as we know, Jesus never said anything about gay sex"

There are specific Biblical condemnations regarding homosexuality, or "gay sex": as she refers to it.
These texts describe male-male sexual intercourse as an abomination and condemns same sex relationships for both men and women as unnatural.
The emphasis is on the biblical model of marriage and sexuality as exclusively between a man and a woman.

Cornell's interpretation of Luke 20.35 "Those who are worthy of Heaven, need not bother with marriage". "He did, however, take a stand on family life: he was opposed."

In the Scriptures Luke 20.35 it is written "Neither marry, nor are given in marriage" in this context, it describes the nature of the resurrected state, where earthly institutions like marriage are no longer necessary.

and in Luke 14.26 Cornell writes, "the true disciple must hate the family he already has",

The requirement to 'hate' one's own life (Luke 14.26) indicates that the disciple's dedication should be so high that all other attachments including family and self preservation, appear as "hate" by comparison and family members do not come before one's commitment to the faith.
Ultimate Loyalty.

The One Flesh Union is the biblical concept that in marriage a man and a woman become one flesh Matthew 19:4-6).

The world often misuses and cheapens sexuality, whereas the intended form of sexual intimacy is a beautiful, sacred experience.
The Song of Solomon, highlights the passion of two lovers, albeit an allegory, as the love between God and His people.

..........and this is only in the first paragraph of the article. Needless to say I gave up after this.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The All Seeing Eye depicted in the article is an immediate red flag.

This symbol, which is the Eye of Providence, is not merely a historical emblem, but is used by the Occult, Freemasonry and Jesuit-led organisations to represent Luciferianism rather than the Christian representation of God's omniscience.

To begin with, this article by S C Cornell (who is obviously a Catholic) blatantly misinterprets/ignores distinct laws in the Scriptures.

Esteemed ReasonVemotion. Alexiev submitted the article. I am an innocent cultural appropriator!

I am (also) an eye.

[reasonvemotion]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

Alexiev submitted the article.

Indeed. My apologies.

I am (also) an eye.

Another red flag.

ReasonVemotion

Are the capital letters a freudian slip?

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, at least I do not wink so

[Alexis Jacobi]

Please explain your own "non-rigid metaphysical picture," so we can see how it's serving your argument here.

I might in the course of time do that, but for right now I can use an aspect of your (i.e. Christianity’s) rigid metaphysical picture to begin to illustrate the point.

For weeks and months (on the Christianity thread) we discussed the metaphysical notion of “eternal hell” for those who did not do thus-and-such while incarnated in a body. In your system, a soul is created, sent into a womb and a body, and is given just some moments in time to receive and process some ideas and lessons about incarnated, biological existence, and resolve to accept the doctrines that lead the soul to a “heavenly realm” of existence superior to that of Earth. In your system should you have heard the Gospel and failed to act in specific ways in relation to it, you will 1) have chosen a fate so terrible that it can hardly be thought about, or 2) you will be thrown into an eternal (i.e. never ending) realm of suffering by God himself.

I certainly, definitely, clearly, emphatically and repeatedly declare that this “metaphysical picture” is a) incorrect b) a manifestation of a very human (“all-too-human”) tendency to inflict psychological torture through the assertion of cruel “pictures”. As far as a “picture” of a Divine Intelligence goes, it is in truth a viciously drawn metaphysical image.

Remember: most will understand themselves as compelled to reject all metaphysical pictures such as these. They will say, because they have no scientific means to have solid knowledge, that all of this is crazy-making nonsense. That is the common position of that man trained up in today’s philosophical categories.

However, there are alternative metaphysical pictures that one can access. (Such as Vedantic philosophy which happens to be of interest to me).

My “argument”?

Strictly in relation to you and your apologetics which has failed thoroughly for over a decade I argue that the core idea (picture) you work with needs to be revisited, revised, clarified and to be made to accord with “truth”. Yet it is more than obvious that the question of truth — ultimate metaphysical truth — is an extremely knotty problem for we moderns.

This is why my argument is that all of this, for those inclined, needs to be carefully gone through but by way of a process if taking other metaphysical systems — metaphysical existentialisms — into account.

For the meantime I will hold off feeding you to the lions as you mull over the material.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you don't believe in God, or in His revelation of facts about the soul, then there's no grounds to believe in it at all, that I know of. As you say, science will not help, because science deals only with physical things, and the soul is notoriously not composed of the material. Rationality won't help, because rationality requires premises, which require something established and known from which to begin...and you're saying there's no such thing. So there are no premises from which a logical deduction could proceed.

You have outlined ‘the modern problem’. The issue, obviously, becomes one of subjective intuition. And possibly that a given man will be introduced to people, or a person, or literature that outline a metaphysical conception that ‘makes sense’ (seems correct to intuition). And as a result that a ‘conceptual pathway’ is opened up. The concept-pathway is crucial. Were there none there could be no advancement from a scientific materialistic platform to any other.

A given man, a sole man, will come face to face with the issue of ‘existence’ and ‘awareness’ in this realm where we find ourselves. And here the problem only begins doesn’t it? If I assert there is another or competing epistemology to that of our modern one, I will be asked to ‘prove’ it. Preaching always involves ‘verbal formulae’ but mere verbal formulae do not perform much work at all, do they?

So it is clear that we would not, I might say ‘instinctively’, have a clear sense how to verify a competing epistemology.

Most people (or let me say) many people do not ‘believe in God’ because it is impossible, rationally and intellectually, for them to do so and still maintain the tenets of our modern system (such as it is). To ask someone therefore to believe is to ask them to be irrational. And giving that up is literally too much to ask.

All of this must be set out on the table for detailed and thoughtful consideration. It is not a small problem by any measure.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One other thing, and really a principle thing, that we must take into consideration as we consider ‘soul’ ‘eternal soul’ ‘God’ and all aspects of metaphysics, is the psychological state of people today and, certainly, many of those who participate in this forum. I do not mean to focus on a reference, as many have, to those with neurotic problems or “mental illness”, but rather to call to mind mental, psychological and also ‘spiritual’ fracturation that seems to be increasing in our various societies. Actually the point is to include the notion of our own fracturation since, often, recourse to spiritual life is perceived as a route to wellness, getting well, psychological and spiritual growth and healing, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

Please explain your own "non-rigid metaphysical picture," so we can see how it's serving your argument here.

I might in the course of time do that...

It needs to be done now, of course. How else are we to decide if you really have anything to say, or whether you're just complaining about everybody else, without having a reasonable view of your own? These things are not taken for granted -- and ought not to be, if we are thinkers.

However, there are alternative metaphysical pictures that one can access.

No doubt. But if they're just "pictures," and are not based on some reality, they're not anything. So again, we're back to asking what this vaunted superior metaphysical knowledge that qualifies you to be critical of others might be.

I know how to articulate the Christian view. And I don't hesitate to. What's the cause of your reticence in doing the same for your own view? And if you simply cannot, what are we to conclude about that?

[Immanuel Can]

If you don't believe in God, or in His revelation of facts about the soul, then there's no grounds to believe in it at all, that I know of. As you say, science will not help, because science deals only with physical things, and the soul is notoriously not composed of the material. Rationality won't help, because rationality requires premises, which require something established and known from which to begin...and you're saying there's no such thing. So there are no premises from which a logical deduction could proceed.

You have outlined ‘the modern problem’.

Everybody's problem, actually. It's universal. The need for justification doesn't vapourize, simply because somebody denies its existence. It remains, but is intractible.

The issue, obviously, becomes one of subjective intuition. And possibly that a given man will be introduced to people, or a person, or literature that outline a metaphysical conception that ‘makes sense’ (seems correct to intuition).

It's not obvious how "subjective intuition" can amount to anything else than "empty fancy." If it differs, in some way, it must be because the kind of "intuiting" being encouraged is somehow distinctive from mere "imagined stuff." At present, I don't see the difference between what you're proposing and mere heaping up of gratuitious fancies in the brain. But if there's a difference, I'm prepared to hear about that. What is it?

And as a result that a ‘conceptual pathway’ is opened up.

Well, if all that means is, "it gives one the option of imagining things instead of having to face reality," then it's not much of a "pathway." So we should look for some way in which this "conceptual pathway" is closer to reality than mere imagining can be. And what would that be?

If I assert there is another or competing epistemology to that of our modern one, I will be asked to ‘prove’ it.

Not "prove." That's too much to be asked. Merely, "give some good reasons for," or "show rational" in some way. And in particular, to explain why this "epstemology," so called, is a better "pathway" to understanding reality than the alternatives on offer. That's a very fair and modest asking, actually.

Most people (or let me say) many people do not ‘believe in God’ because it is impossible, rationally and intellectually, for them to do so

Not at all. Belief in God has always been rationally and intellectually "possible." Thousands of years of intellectual history have demonstrated that.

It is not a small problem by any measure.

But it's one that any episteme, to commend itself to anyone, must be able to address at least reasonably convincingly. So I still await your rationalization of that episteme, your explication of the basis for preferring it, so as to see if we should credit it with anything, or not.

[Immanuel Can]

One other thing, and really a principle thing, that we must take into consideration as we consider ‘soul’ ‘eternal soul’ ‘God’ and all aspects of metaphysics, is the psychological state of people today and, certainly, many of those who participate in this forum.

Why?

Why would anybody's "psychological state" have anything to do at all with considering any of these things?

They're two different issues. One is, "What is the truth?" and the other is, "Who is in a psychological state to grasp the truth." The former can be explicated, regardless of the latter. If it were the case that ten people on this forum were in no "psychological state" to hear what you have to say, yet it would be true that the one or two who were in the right "psychological state" still could; and it would still be the case that the truth would remain the truth, regardless of all "psychological" preferences.

Are you telling us a truth? If you are, it can be presented. Whether or not it will be accepted can remain a secondary question. If you're right, you'll be right...and all "psychologically-in-the-right-state" people, or even those who could become in that state, will recognize it. If you're wrong, then the same people will point it out to you, and you'll be the wiser for their counsel.

Fair enough?

[Impenitent]

how much is psychological state the agreement of terms in languages that are shared; and how much is in unknown languages?

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

how much is psychological state the agreement of terms in languages that are shared; and how much is in unknown languages?

-Imp

Well, right: and to accuse somebody of being "abnormal," or "psychologically out of a good state," one already has to have in mind a baseline for what "normal" and "psychologically in a good state" are. How does somebody determine that? And more importantly, even, can they justify their baseline conception of "normal" or "psychologically in a good state" against those who have reason to doubt their word?