God and morality

[Gary Childress]

There is a way to examine Hamlet if it is seen as sacred art: Art dealing on man’s psychology, the realization of our condition that St Paul sums up as “groaning”.

From Shakespeare in the Light of Sacred Art by Marin Lings:

The Queen is not merely Hamlet's mother; she is his whole ancestral line going back to Eve herself; and inasmuch as she is Eve, she represents, in general, the fallen human soul, especially in its passive aspect. In other words, she represents that passivity which in man's primordial state was turned towards Heaven and which after it lost contact with the Spirit has come more or less under the sway of the devil or, in the words of the play, having sated itself in a celestial bed has come to prey on garbage. Like the father and son in Henry IV, mother and son here can each be taken separately as representing 'Everyman', but above all they are to be taken together as constituting fallen human soul, Hamlet himself being the personification of its active aspect — its conscience and its intelligence. The attitude of the son towards his mother, which many people consider to be something of an enigma and which has prompted more than one grotesque explanation, is amply explained if we consider that allegorically mother and son are one person, different faculties of one and thesame soul.

What exactly is the "human condition," and does everyone have the same "condition"? I'm thinking, if I can get the NY Times to buy my black helicopter theory, it would completely legitimize the whole thing and make it front-page news across the world! I'll be RICH beyond my wildest dreams!!!!!

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Nature is corrupted" — God created Nature. If humans can corrupt Nature, then how impotent is God? How little foresight did God have?

More properly and as it pertains to Catholic-Christian concepts, man is responsible for his condition. Which is expressed by way of a “picture”. A fall from Grace. It is admittedly quite fantastic to lay before a man that he is responsible for the terribleness of the world. And that he must act as an agent, even at the level of an amoeba and as weak, to “set things right”.

Everything in Christianity turns on what is needed and required to “set it right”. Every moral imperative is located in that.

Alexis Jacobi is not the Author of this metaphysical picture, Phyllo, rather it is that Alexis Jacobi appears to explain and to clarify.

[Gary Childress]

"Nature is corrupted" — God created Nature. If humans can corrupt Nature, then how impotent is God? How little foresight did God have?

More properly and as it pertains to Catholic-Christian concepts, man is responsible for his condition. Which is expressed by way of a “picture”. A fall from Grace.

Everything in Christianity turns on what is needed and required to “set it right”. Every moral imperative is located in that.

Alexis Jacobi is not the Author of this metaphysical picture, Phyllo, rather it is that Alexis Jacobi appears to explain and to clarify.

What if the Catholic scientists were wrong?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What if the Catholic scientists were wrong?

Tell me then what the “right” description of the world is? Tell me what man does in that world that you will describe?

[phyllo]

The rest, hopefully the vast majority, will reason, judge, evaluate, think and apply standards to God and God's Principles.

But you must admit, as I have been pointing out, that in your case, for you, it is all phantasy. It has no real substance. Why do you even dpeak of God and God’s principles when, for you, these are not real?

You really need to clarify and double-down on where in fact you stand, Phyllo.

This is something I have found over the years ...

People on the internet, very frequently, think that you must believe the position that you are arguing. They can't understand that you can simply take a position, make reasonable points for that position, reveal problems and errors in the opposing position. They can't separate the person from the arguments.

[Gary Childress]

What if the Catholic scientists were wrong?

Tell me then what the “right” description of the world is? Tell me what man does in that world that you will describe?

The "right" description of the world, I already told you, is the black helicopters hangared at the Kennedy Space Center. The whole human science apparatus has been taken over by aliens who have co-opted the scientists into doing their dirty work. God is the master alien who created human beings in his lab and put us here. Do you actually think that's not the case? And if so, can you prove to me that black helicopters aren't hangared at the Kennedy Space Center and that our scientists aren't secretly collaborating with aliens?

[Gary Childress]

By the way, all my references to "aliens" and "God" are secret code metaphors for something that is really happening. I work for the NSA in their basement. I've been trapped here by the aliens and am trying to get the world out to humanity. Please, please, relay my message to the NY Times, and I want "He died saving humanity" to be engraved on my tombstone when all this is over!

[Alexis Jacobi]

The "right" description of the world, I already told you, is the black helicopters hangared at the Kennedy Space Center.

Too fantastic, Gary. Just too fantastic. As I am a rational man and of sound mind I simply cannot believe it.

[Gary Childress]

Actually, I lied about more than one thing in my post above. But I can't divulge what it is. Just get the message to the NY Times!

[Gary Childress]

The "right" description of the world, I already told you, is the black helicopters hangared at the Kennedy Space Center.

Too fantastic, Gary. Just too fantastic. As I am a rational man and of sound mind I simply cannot believe it.

Damn, foiled by the impeccable reason of Alexis Jacobi! I'll get you yet AJ! I'm dastardly and clever!

[phyllo]

"Nature is corrupted" — God created Nature. If humans can corrupt Nature, then how impotent is God? How little foresight did God have?

More properly and as it pertains to Catholic-Christian concepts, man is responsible for his condition. Which is expressed by way of a “picture”. A fall from Grace. It is admittedly quite fantastic to lay before a man that he is responsible for the terribleness of the world. And that he must act as an agent, even at the level of an amoeba and as weak, to “set things right”.

Everything in Christianity turns on what is needed and required to “set it right”. Every moral imperative is located in that.

Alexis Jacobi is not the Author of this metaphysical picture, Phyllo, rather it is that Alexis Jacobi appears to explain and to clarify.

Well, "man is responsible for his condition" is a different claim. It's not the same as "Nature is corrupted".

Then there is the problem that the "fall from Grace" involved Adam and Eve, but some how "man", ie everybody, is being held responsible. Is that fair?

[Alexis Jacobi]

People on the internet, very frequently, think that you must believe the position that you are arguing. They can't understand that you can simply take a position, make reasonable points for that position, reveal problems and errors in the opposing position. They can't separate the person from the arguments.

Well, my view is that Man and Argument are better seen as a whole and inseparable. It is the real view that we hold (of what is and the way things are) that really determines what a man does.

So the question is: What is your description of the world?

Think on this Quote by Thomas Carlyle:

But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere scepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is

[Alexis Jacobi]

Then there is the problem that the "fall from Grace" involved Adam and Eve, but some how "man", ie everybody, is being held responsible. Is that fair?

Totally.

[Gary Childress]

The rest, hopefully the vast majority, will reason, judge, evaluate, think and apply standards to God and God's Principles.

But you must admit, as I have been pointing out, that in your case, for you, it is all phantasy. It has no real substance. Why do you even dpeak of God and God’s principles when, for you, these are not real?

You really need to clarify and double-down on where in fact you stand, Phyllo.

This is something I have found over the years ...

People on the internet, very frequently, think that you must believe the position that you are arguing. They can't understand that you can simply take a position, make reasonable points for that position, reveal problems and errors in the opposing position. They can't separate the person from the arguments.

I think we're all chasing phantasms. Which is maybe fine as long as it doesn't get us all into a nuclear war or divert us away from trying to salvage our environment. (Things that are actually real concerns.)

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think we're all chasing phantasms. Which is maybe fine as long as it doesn't get us all into a nuclear war or divert us away from trying to salvage our environment. (Things that are actually real concerns.)

So too is that impetus to make better, to improve the world, and to build a better world, to participate as an agent?

I think that is at least one of the central pillars of Christian ethics.