Sex and Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

On this we are in agreement, and I established this at the start: As it pertains to things metaphysical, and not provable by science method, we take things as being true by way of various reasons: cultural background, scriptural assertion, etc.

I didn't quite agree to that, actually. What I said was that although science cannot prove a metaphysical claim, it's quite possible for it to debunk one, if sufficient warrant for that exists in science.

So, for example, both you and I can believe in the existence of some sort of soul, and science won't be able to gainsay that. But the belief in a past-eternal universe is different; science definitively debunks it. So metaphysical postulates that require it are defeated by science.

There is no way that you could present here, in verbal formal, that a God that sends a given soul to eternal hell is reasonable.

I disagree. I think that you can find it perfectly reasonable.

If God allows human free will, then, at minimum and by definition, He must allow a minimum of two options: something like belief and unbelief, or obedience and refusal...but there have to be two live options in play, or there is no free will, by definition. So that premise is obvious and uncontentious. It's definitionally true.

But if man is allowed to reject God, how is that live option going to be actualized? We already know it MUST be actualizable, or there is no free will. And what would you call the choice of a human being to reject the Source of All Good, but "Hell"?

So it's perfectly rational. You may not like the reasons, or you may say that it's reasonable but not how things are, as you see them. But you can't say it's not rational...at least, you can't and be rational.

So one view is at least rational, and the other is outright anti-scientific. So which of the two is actually "superior"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

But the belief in a past-eternal universe is different; science definitively debunks it.

You continually rephrase what I say into statements I did not make. I did not make any statement about a 'past-eternal universe', I repeated what is expressed in much Vedic scripture: that the soul is part-and-parcel of God and as God is ever-created (eternal) so is the soul in that most elemental aspect: the soul and atman.

I suppose that the Rishis (those who arrived at much of this knowledge) would say that existence cannot ever cease to exist, and therefore it is absurd to think in terms of 'beginnings'. What is eternal cannot ever come into existence. However, prakriti (the manifestation, nature, stuff) does come into existence or is brought into existence. But I think that those Vedantists would say 'in eternal processes'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, karma isn't a "philosophy," but a supposition. But let that be.

Karma is part of a metaphysical conception expressed, often, philosophically.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, the karmic view implies you inherit your own sins. But it also requires both the soul and the material universe to be omni-existent entities. And science reveals quite definitively that material reality is not eternal. So it presents a very serious problem for Eastern mysticisms. I note that you've skipped that point in your reply. But it can hardly be passed over, since Eastern mysticism itself requires an eternal universe.

That is all 'construct' on your part. You slide in and out of 'reasoned science explanations' when convenient (and as a pose)and then veer into the most far-fetched ones that are possible to an over-excited mind. As for example your unusual theory about an 'original mating pair'. The cross between Genesis story-telling and mythic fabulation and some variant of anthropological theory.

The karma theory is more complex. It is that you have created your own sins and suffer their results. What we create we will be obligated to un-create.

I would agree that 'Eastern mysticism' requires, first and foremost, an ever-existing divine entity who, I would gather, cannot be seen as existing in time as we exist, but rather creates time, or creates the world of prakriti (manifestation) in unending, eternal cycles. That is how it is expressed as I remember.

I suppose you have some fixation on our present world's creation date? (13.8 billion years ago, or whatever). My supposition would be that in the far-ranging Vedic thought, if I might take a guess, that they would envision an eternal flow of created universes. Or that 'time' does not really exist though it seems to.

[seeds]

...the Bhadgavad Gita presents the notion that our soul is a minor element of the same stuff as is the super-soul: I.e. of God. We are parts-and-parcels of the same stuff, if you will, of 'God'...

Greetings, my old Internet buddy, where were you hanging out during the break?

Unfortunately, we can no longer post images on this site, however, we can at least link to them...

...to which I emphatically proclaim that not only does my flagship illustration, here...

https://theultimateseeds.com/Images/18% ... ge%208.jpg

...represent precisely what your statement about the Gita suggests, but it also implies an organic “naturalness” to it all - a naturalness that,...

...rather than the (navel-gazing) purposelessness of the soul after achieving so-called “moksha” as proposed in Vedic philosophy,...

...the soul will awaken to a destiny that is so wonderful and so full of growth and eternal purposefulness that it (the soul’s destiny) must be kept hidden from us until death so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

It’s time for both of you guys (you and IC) to emerge from the fog of the opposing mythologies that you both cling to, and realize that the truth of reality is far more, again, wonderful, and logical, and purposeful than what our ancient ancestors were able to discern.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

It’s time for both of you guys (you and IC) to emerge from the fog of the opposing mythologies that you both cling to, and realize that the truth of reality is far more, again, wonderful, and logical, and purposeful than what our ancient ancestors were able to discern.

You hear that Immanuel? Words of wisdom. He is saying that you need to step out of the fog (that is a metaphor) of the illusory mythology that has you so in its sway.

I am hear to catch you when your world collapses ...

[Alexis Jacobi]

But that's not what Hinduism says. In Hinduism, rather, "punishment" or better, "samsara," "suffering," is perpetual, and in fact, eternal. It's karmic, and a cycle, and goes around and around forever, unless one escapes the great Wheel by achieving enlightenment and reintegration with the supersoul -- a thing which, obviously, nobody can test or know is even possible.

But the Gita's moral perspective is highly troubling, as well. Consider that opening incident in chapter II: Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna as the slavery maw of Fate, grinding all Arjuna's adversaries into a bloody pulp. Is this the God, morally or actually, that one wants to follow for moral reasons? Is this "superior" to the mercy, prayer and love to one's enemies pressed upon Christians by Christ Himself?

Make the case, if you can, for conscienceless slaughter being "superior" to love for one's enemies.

Though we do choose 'where we are' but we also can change 'where we are' by inner decision: an internal shift or movement. So if there is 'sin' and if there is a 'sinner', a sinner chooses his reality. Be it in this world or some other world or life. And that might be 'hellish' but it is not eternal. That is a superior interpretation of our metaphysical reality.

Your argument here, then, is "I don't like the idea of Hell, therefore Hell cannot exist." That's not a very good argument, actually.

It is true that in Vedanta (or one school of Hinduism) they understand 'samsara' as the condition in which we live. The reason is because, as they will say, we actually have and possess and in fact are a part of God, but we have lost this understanding through long processes of misunderstanding, bad choices, desire, ambition and much else. In this, it is a similar belief-set to that of Genesis and The Fall. When God (or his angel) banished man from the Garden -- one might put it like this -- man was relegated to a form of 'samsara'. Not quite the same, but similar. For this reason I suggest that the metaphysical principles behind the mythologies need to be re-examined. If you are 'stuck in story' you cannot grasp the gist of the Story. And the gist is the message.

But here is the thing about a view of 'our reality' as samsaric: It depends on your choices and your decisions and your actions to wake up. And the process of 'waking up' is, of course, the process of yoga. Samsara is largely a state of mind or a 'condition' that requires a cure. That agent of curation is Vidya: knowledge. It is 'knowledge' that is understood to flow down from on high; from supernal realms. The message of all Revelation is about waking up, and for this reason knowledge is the light-bringer.

Yes it is true, as far as I can tell, that perhaps the entire universe is caught in samsara. But it is not an ultimately pessimistic picture.

When it is proposed that the illusion of samsara "goes around and around forever, unless one escapes the great Wheel by achieving enlightenment and reintegration with the super-soul", I suggest that this is far better than a God that chucks a sinner into an eternal hell-realm as an ultimate sadistic act. So on one hand you point to an ethical problem that sticks in your craw, while simultaneously you 'believe in' a most fabulous but utterly cruel and irresolvable destiny of eternal punishment suffering.

And you do not seem to have enough self-consciousness to note how absurd this seems to one viewing.

It seems to me entirely coherent that *our world* is very much like what these Rishis say. The world of nature (prakriti) is mindless, devouring, cruel, unending, cyclic, and 'eternal' for all intents and purposes. If you live in Nature, you certainly suffer. Because you are trapped in processes that are mechanical.

To the degree that a man must live constrained by that 'world' is the degree that that man is certainly unfree, indeed imprisoned. And this is why, my dearest and most delightful child, I try to bring to your attention that it is the metaphysical world that we must access. It is 'the world beyond the world'. And what I mean to say is that when man discovers himself in the fallen realness of this world, but gains access to Vidya, he can really and truly change his relationship to things.

Krishna reveals himself to Arjuna as the slavery maw of Fate, grinding all Arjuna's adversaries into a bloody pulp.

There are more terrible visions of frightening reality of prakriti than just that one. You need look no further than our world itself, as it is.

Generally, what people see in that Story is the struggle of a specific man with a specific destiny: a man of the warrior class and the class that, it is said, is born to fight for justice. There are said to be "noble and necessary battles". In fact we describe WWll as just that sort of battle. Terrible, costly, bloody, grueling, but necessary. Indeed (they say) that only a coward of a man would have turned away from such a noble and necessary battle.

Your argument here, then, is "I don't like the idea of Hell, therefore Hell cannot exist." That's not a very good argument, actually.

No, that is your description of what you wish my argument to be. My argument is that God Himself cannot want things to turn out that way and God would not allow it.

Now there you have a vision of positiveness, my friend! I want you to become like God. I want you, of your own volition, to open the very gates of hell. Liberate them.

C'mon Immanuel, sing along with me!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I say that your brand of theism, and the specificity of false notions about Jesus Christ as the sole gateway (to whatever you describe as of ultimate value) is erroneously grounded.

Yes, I know you do say that. But WHY? Why is it that you think the Vedic one is superior? You still haven't said: and in fact, this message is just another attempt to reverse that burden-of-proof, rather than forming an answer.

I don't think you have an answer. I think that if you did, you'd have presented it for-the-win long ago. And even if you had no belief that I would agree, you'd do it for the observing others' sake.

Let us back up a few steps so that some important things can be clarified. I began by stating that your apologetics has been a failure, in fact a total failure. You spend years and decades here, reach no one, convince no one, convert no one, and actually achieve the opposite: the arousal of contempt for you and the religion and doctrines that you say you represent. If you take this merely as an 'attack' on your person you will make a large mistake. Because my larger interest is not you or anyone here, but the larger cultural issues of this day and time in which we are all subsumed. If 'philosophy' has relevance, it is relevant to the degree that it aids us in becoming conscious of ourselves in the present and, perhaps also, to the degree that it gives us 'intellectual tools' to interact in our world and also to influence and change our world.

It seems to me that one's 'philosophy', to the degree that it becomes defined and solid, is actually one's 'religious interface'. Effectively it serves as one's religion. Some may disagree but in my view the issue of religion -- the totality of one's metaphysics and how they are practiced -- is in no sense diminished even in a highly secular age and an age where our minds, attention and consciousness are captured by powers and forces that are parts-and-parcels of the technology of civilization, society, industry, communication et cetera. Interestingly, if I am to make a reference to the Vedas and to the notion of Prakriti (nature) we can say that we are *subsumed* into an entire world that is not really 'conscious' but into a world that is unconscious, determined, enthralling, but also essentially not geared or directed to be to our 'benefit' but moreover to rope us in to itself; to entrap us; to control us. Taken in the larger view I would describe this as 'samsaric'.

This brings me to mention what I suppose are issues vital to you. I once referred to a book that had a strong influence on me: The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom. It was and is a direct confrontation by an Evangelical Christian of what I just attempted to describe: A world of unconscious potency that seeks to infest our minds and direct us to all that traps and entralls us. In brief, and employing Christian concepts, to sin. I do not disregard or diminish the notion of 'sin' but I definitely state that what sin is must be better defined. The strictly Christian concepts are useful only up to a point, and as I attempt to make you aware your apologetic strategies turn people away from the consideration of the metaphysical principles involved in these issue, and these metaphysical principles exist and function outside and beyond the specificity of Christian religiousness and symbolism.

So your apparent question which I do not regard as an authentic question because you are not an authentic philosopher and you are, significantly, a con-artist and a poseur insofar as you achieve the exact opposite of what you pretend to want to achieve while you gloat in an attitude of achievement when you achieve nothing. You say: "I have doctrines and a message that you must receive. If you do not accept this doctrine and this 'act' that you prescribe you will fry in eternal hell". This is the basis of your apologetics here. It is, as I hope you realize, the basis of a specifically Christian and Catholic apologetics, but with you and what you represent -- even the avatar you have selected tells a story about your affiliations, more on that later -- you are selling Christian Evangelism of a specific sort. You are part-and-parcel of an Evangelical movement with significant influential power over 'the minds of the masses', and specifically the minds of Christian Evangelicals in the US. (Please grasp that I have to state all of this as a way os setting things up to be able to 'answer your (annoying) questions', questions that you use to avoid getting down the real brass tacks of what is important.

Now you ask me why it is that I believe that what I am attempting to outline to you represents something 'superior' to that which you, and your ilk, are selling. Fair enough. Except that you 1) do not really want an answer and 2) you will resist the message and content of the answer because of your fanatic commitments.

The analysis I have just provided to you in what I have just written is 'superior' to the apologetics that you present here on PN. It sees 'the problem' in a way that you cannot see the problem. That is one element. But insofar as it pertains to metaphysical doctrines and philosophical bases from which we can think about existence here in this plane, and also in relation to culture and civilization, the metaphysical knowledge presented in Vedanta, when adapted intellectually and practically, is beyond doubt superior to that which you try to present and have been presenting (here) for decades.

I got six paragraphs here and, in truth, only an outline of what can be said. Naturally there is so much more that would need to be detailed and more thoroughly explained. I want you to keep in your mind that you and I have been engaging for many years. And *you* have served the function of a focus for a great deal of my own ancillary study. I have got hold of and read materials that you have mentioned and recommended. And certainly I have along with many others *engaged* with you. You must see and understand that I do not argue with you-singular. I argue against a 'structure of ideas' and what is more important a 'religious attitude' that you embody here, that you encapsulate. It might seem to you that I am involved personally but that has been, has always been, sham.

You have to be answered, Immanuel. You see yourself as an innocent creature and God's darling. Bring that to an end. It is ridiculously erroneous. I am as I say not speaking to you-singular but to something in a modern perversion of Evangelical Christianity: a method or entrallment that is prevalent today.

I have no idea what 'the observing others' think. I can only tell you what I think and why.

[Immanuel Can]

But the belief in a past-eternal universe is different; science definitively debunks it.

You continually rephrase what I say into statements I did not make. I did not make any statement about a 'past-eternal universe', I repeated what is expressed in much Vedic scripture: that the soul is part-and-parcel of God and as God is ever-created (eternal) so is the soul in that most elemental aspect: the soul and atman.

Well, I'm afraid you haven't understood the Vedic beliefs you cite, then. For though you have not demanded a circular, eternal universe, the wheel of samsara demands it. Hinduism and Buddhism lose all their explanatory appeal, and most of the practical features of their system, if karmic recursions cannot happen. And they lose their explanation of the eternality of the material-spiritual diad, as well. In fact, the glue comes out of the whole system if the universe isn't past-eternal.

And you seem to intuit this yourself, as well. For you say,

I suppose that the Rishis (those who arrived at much of this knowledge) would say that existence cannot ever cease to exist, and therefore it is absurd to think in terms of 'beginnings'. What is eternal cannot ever come into existence. However, prakriti (the manifestation, nature, stuff) does come into existence or is brought into existence. But I think that those Vedantists would say 'in eternal processes'.

If, then, the material world has a beginning, then you are right: the rest becomes absurd, an implausible "just-so" kind of story. The whole system hangs on the supposition of the co-eternality of spiritual and material.

But, of course, that's exactly what science has shown us is the case: time is linear, existence is contingent and entropic, and the universe is expanding linearly. That rules out the Vedic cosmology.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If, then, the material world has a beginning, then you are right: the rest becomes absurd, an implausible "just-so" kind of story. The whole system hangs on the supposition of the co-eternality of spiritual and material.

The world, for you, and within the system that you function in, has a specific beginning and no other beginning: Genesis. You accept this Story as the sole and definitive 'creation story' that is not myth or symbolism, but a science-sutable and science-conformable description of our present reality.

The Rishis and the Vedas have various 'pictures' that they refer to, and one of them is that there 'must be' any number -- an infinity -- of created world-events.

But for us the relevance hinges far more on the definition of prakriti and nature and the relationship of the aware soul (purusha) in relation to the problem of existence in the world.

As per normal you gloss over all of this, and the entirety of what I presented to you (!) and as I say this is par for the course for you.

You are "deaf for all that you have ears". You are also an amazing subject of study.

[Immanuel Can]

If, then, the material world has a beginning, then you are right: the rest becomes absurd, an implausible "just-so" kind of story. The whole system hangs on the supposition of the co-eternality of spiritual and material.

The world, for you...

But right now, we're talking about the world for you and the Vedas.