God and morality

[Immanuel Can]

No, it's not the Biblical account. In the Biblical account, salvation happens to living human beings, here, in this world. And then, this world itself becomes the locale of the eternal kingdom...not some "world beyond" made of "imperishable, divine substance." Christianity is not Gnostic.

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” (Rev. 11:15)

It is true, as it pertains to Catholic doctrines regarding the fate of our physical Earth and the end of Existence, that the Advent of Christ into the world is, as it were, the heralding of the transformation of not only the Earth but the entire Cosmos.

Well, you'd better find a Catholic and ask him about that.

[Immanuel Can]

Is this how you see it, Mr. Yam?

No, it's not the Biblical account. In the Biblical account, salvation happens to living human beings, here, in this world. And then, this world itself becomes the locale of the eternal kingdom...not some "world beyond" made of "imperishable, divine substance." Christianity is not Gnostic.

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” (Rev. 11:15)

How does this world become "the locale of the eternal kingdom"? Are you referring to Christ's alleged return to Earth whereby he raises the dead?

You can read the passage yourself, but essentially, yes.

[phyllo]

No, it is a specific term with specific relevancy to ‘men’ (ie people in our society) and how they have been influenced and trained to understand our reality: this world.

You are skirting the issue of clarifying where you actually stand, Phyllo.

But maybe you mean that modern man has been dumbed down?

Or maybe I mean that you have dumbed yourself down by accepting this stereotype.

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: It is true, as it pertains to Catholic doctrines regarding the fate of our physical Earth and the end of Existence, that the Advent of Christ into the world is, as it were, the heralding of the transformation of not only the Earth but the entire Cosmos.

Mr Yam: Well, you'd better find a Catholic and ask him about that.

I simply recite Catholic-Christian doctrine. And it is exactly and precisely that. It is not an argument that I concoct, it is the way that Early Christianity conceived of Christ’s advent.

I cannot conceive what your counter-argument would be.

Also: Christianity is Catholicism. Catholicism is Christianity. Catholicism the “father & mother” and Protestantism a deformed, bastard son.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Or maybe I mean that you have dumbed yourself down by accepting this stereotype.

I have accepted no particular ‘stereotype’ but I do believe that our modernity is a relevant term. And that is why I used it.

What is it in the term, Phyllo, that you see as being stereotypical? Fill out your idea.

[Gary Childress]

No, it's not the Biblical account. In the Biblical account, salvation happens to living human beings, here, in this world. And then, this world itself becomes the locale of the eternal kingdom...not some "world beyond" made of "imperishable, divine substance." Christianity is not Gnostic.

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” (Rev. 11:15)

How does this world become "the locale of the eternal kingdom"? Are you referring to Christ's alleged return to Earth whereby he raises the dead?

You can read the passage yourself, but essentially, yes.

And you truly believe Christ is coming back and going to raise the dead. All this based on something someone wrote about 2000 years ago? Somehow the person who wrote that knew what is going to happen in the future. They divined that information from divine revelation. Is that correct?

Who is the last person we know of who truly heard God speak to them, not through the Bible but spoke audibly to a human? God only spoke to the writers of the Bible and hasn't said anything to anyone since. Is that correct? And God only selects certain individuals to reveal himself to and only once to a crowd of people who can then verify they all heard God speak. And at that one and only time it was Jesus who spoke to them? Is that correct? And God doesn't talk to people who are skeptical of his existence or intentions in order to make things clear to them. Is that correct? And none of this is in any substantial way similar to other folklore stories such as Mohammed's ascendence to heaven or mythological stories that have cropped up in many forms among cultures all over the world since the beginning of human civilization? Is that correct.

I ask because there seems to be a conspicuous pattern of secrecy and occultism that follows us humans wherever we go and ALL of these myths and stories have noticeable differences. But only one such tradition has it all true, and that is the Judeo-Christian tradition. Is that correct too?

[Impenitent]

God talks to people all the time... ever since they closed the asylums, you can find them under bridges everywhere...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

How does this world become "the locale of the eternal kingdom"? Are you referring to Christ's alleged return to Earth whereby he raises the dead?

You can read the passage yourself, but essentially, yes.

And you truly believe Christ is coming back and going to raise the dead. All this based on something someone wrote about 2000 years ago? Somehow the person who wrote that knew what is going to happen in the future. They divined that information from divine revelation. Is that correct?

Who is the last person we know of who truly heard God speak to them, not through the Bible but spoke audibly to a human? God only spoke to the writers of the Bible and hasn't said anything to anyone since. Is that correct? And God only selects certain individuals to reveal himself to and only once to a crowd of people who can then verify they all heard God speak. And at that one and only time it was Jesus who spoke to them? Is that correct? And God doesn't talk to people who are skeptical of his existence or intentions in order to make things clear to them. Is that correct? And none of this is in any substantial way similar to other folklore stories such as Mohammed's ascendence to heaven or mythological stories that have cropped up in many forms among cultures all over the world since the beginning of human civilization? Is that correct.

I ask because there seems to be a conspicuous pattern of secrecy and occultism that follows us humans wherever we go and ALL of these myths and stories have noticeable differences. But only one such tradition has it all true, and that is the Judeo-Christian tradition. Is that correct too?

You're asking a lot of different questions, Gary. They're reasonable, and you should get answers. Had we pages and pages to deal with each one,and had they not already been dealt with exhaustively, I could perhaps do something for you on all those. However, it actuall seems a pretty big waste of time, given that there are hordes of good websites dedicated to each of these questions, and you can already find plenty of exhaustive and documented answers to those very questions there, for yourself.

Let me point you to www.gotquestions.org. I doubt you can think of a question not already treated there. And If you don't find your question addressed at gotquestions.org, try reasonablefaith.org, or another site -- put it into Google, and you'll find that somebody's already answered it.

So rather than me rewriting all of that for you, why don't you just read it yourself, at your own pace, each answer in the order you ask them?

Now, if your goal was really to get the answers, you'll find they're there. If you had a different goal, and it's not satisfied by this answer, then what would that goal be?

[seeds]

No, it's not the Biblical account. In the Biblical account, salvation happens to living human beings, here, in this world. And then, this world itself becomes the locale of the eternal kingdom...not some "world beyond" made of "imperishable, divine substance." Christianity is not Gnostic.

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” (Rev. 11:15)

It is true, as it pertains to Catholic doctrines regarding the fate of our physical Earth and the end of Existence, that the Advent of Christ into the world is, as it were, the heralding of the transformation of not only the Earth but the entire Cosmos.

The way that it is conceived is quite outrageous and, frankly, even impossible to believe for Moderns. One must literally deny in a real sense one’s evidentiary eyes in order to ‘believe’ that the world, the one we are in now, will eventually be ‘fixed’ and ‘cured’ as it were of the calamity that occurred in the Fall.

That is why, many months ago, I did point out that the world of biology and ecology, which is a ‘terrible’ world where creatures feed on creatures, will necessarily (according to Christian doctrines) have to be transforned into a new world, a deathless and eternal world.

Death will be no more, mourning and crying and pain will be no more" — Revelation 21:4

It is also expressed in Romans: “… that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God”.

As stated in the Catechism:

"The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, 'so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,' sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ."

And here is where the essence of this Vision of absolute optimism takes shape: If everything that exists came to exist “ex nihilo”, and if this is understood itself to be, say, quite outrageously impossible or inconceivable, then why not see it as possible that the Creator of All could well completely arrange things anew?

>>> OR <<<

...to borrow a page from Buddhist doctrines...

...everything noted above is simply an aspect of the "elaborate riggings" of one of the many temporary "rafts" that humans use to traverse the waters of Earthly life --> rafts that will be abandoned upon reaching the shore of death where the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny will finally be revealed to us.

How does this world become "the locale of the eternal kingdom"? Are you [Mr. Can] referring to Christ's alleged return to Earth whereby he raises the dead?

This is where the "riggings" on the temporary "raft" mentioned above, requires that the raft riders never give any critical thought to what the "raft riggings" (the raft's foundational doctrines) imply.

For example, is Jesus going to raise Joseph Carey Merrick (AKA "John Merrick," AKA the "Elephant Man") from the dead in the same horrifically deformed body he walked the Earth with before he died?

If not, then what will he look like?

Indeed, what will any of the resurrected dead look like if it were a fact that some humans were quite pleasing to the eye, while others - not so much?

Will everyone be condemned to walk the Earth for eternity in the same body they died in, or will everyone be resurrected into some form that - for the sake of there being no envy or jealousy - looks identical to everyone else?

Furthermore, is Jesus going to raise the billions of helpless infants who died throughout time before reaching their first year of life on Earth?

If yes, then Is their care going to be allocated to the original mother from which they were each born? What if that mother is writhing in agony in hell for not accepting Jesus as her personal savior?

Indeed, what about the billions of infants and toddlers who died before having a chance to accept Jesus as their personal savior? Is Jesus going to raise them from the dead just so that he can send them to hell to be tortured for eternity?

And that's just a tiny sampling of the many questions that need to be answered.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Questions, questions, questions!

[phyllo]

gotquestions got you covered

How will our resurrection body be different from our current body?

Answer

In his first letter to the church in Corinth, Paul discusses the great differences between our earthly bodies and our resurrected bodies (see 1 Corinthians 15:35-54). Contrasting our earthly bodies with the splendor of our heavenly (resurrected) bodies, Paul says, “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (vv. 42-44, emphasis added). In short, our resurrected bodies are spiritual, imperishable, and raised in glory and power.

Through the first Adam, we received our natural bodies, perfectly suited to an earthly environment. However, they became perishable as a consequence of the Fall. Due to disobedience, mankind became mortal. Aging, deterioration, and eventual death now affect all of us. From dust we came, and to dust shall we return (Genesis 3:19; Ecclesiastes 3:20). Our resurrection bodies, on the other hand, will be “raised imperishable.” They will never experience sickness, decay, deterioration, or death. And “when the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable… then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory’” (1 Corinthians 15:54).

As a result of the Fall, we are “sown in dishonor.” We were originally made perfect and in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), but sin has brought dishonor. Yet believers have the promise that our imperfect and dishonored bodies will one day be raised in glory. Freed from the restrictions imposed by sin, our resurrected bodies will be honorable and perfectly suited for pleasing and praising our Creator throughout eternity.

Our current bodies are also characterized by weakness and debility. Our earthly “temples” are undeniably fragile and susceptible to the plethora of diseases that ravage mankind. We are also weakened by sin and temptation. One day, though, our bodies will be raised in power and glory, and we will no longer be subject to the flaws and fragility that pervade life today.

Last, the resurrected body will be a spiritual one. Our natural bodies are suited for living in this world, but this is the only realm in which we can live. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50). After the resurrection we will have a “spiritual body,” perfectly suited for living in heaven. This does not mean that we will be only spirits—spirits do not have bodies—but that our resurrected bodies will not need physical sustenance or depend on natural means of supporting life.

We get a glimpse of what our resurrection bodies will be like when we recall Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. He still had visible wounds, and His disciples could physically touch Him, yet He was able to travel effortlessly and appear and disappear at will. He could go through walls and doors yet could also eat and drink and sit and talk. Scripture informs us that our “lowly bodies” will be just “like His glorious body” (Philippians 3:21). Indeed, the physical limitations imposed by sin that hinder our ability to fully serve Him on earth will be forever gone, freeing us to praise and serve and glorify Him for eternity.

If you have a different body, are you not going to be a different person?

If a baby gets an adult spiritual body, doesn't it still have a baby's mind and memory? I guess babies get baby bodies and then they grow up? But that's aging.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, if your goal was really to get the answers, you'll find they're there. If you had a different goal, and it's not satisfied by this answer, then what would that goal be?

Obviously, and I say this with a facsimile of respect: that slurry of questions had a totally different purpose.

Seeds, it can be noted, accepts in his way the essence in the Christian message, however psychedelics have blasted the gist out of an ironclad frame, and channeled it all into horizons of rainbows and rivers gleaming under starlight. And damn the man Donald Trump! (Aaaaaarrrggghhh et cetera et cetera et cetera).

(Sorry, that just popped out!)

What I tend to think of Gary’s position is that it is almost pre-Christian. In the sense that the world he sees is a sort of determined hell that cannot better itself, and cannot be redeemed. His Vision is the end of the road. Effectively hopeless. And a unique intellectual hopelessness that stimulates and renews itself continually.

Obviously, many look at the Christian Picture as an immense compensation phantasy. And all ‘reasonable men” have no choice in that since the Story is ultra-fantastic. It is not incoherent as a Story however.

But we do have to recall our Richard Weaver and his (Platonic) ideas that we certainly all have our “metaphysical dreams of the world”. Even a no-metaphysic is actually a metaphysic.

[phyllo]

What I tend to think of Gary’s position is that it is almost pre-Christian. In the sense that the world he sees is a sort of determined hell that cannot better itself, and cannot be redeemed. His Vision is the end of the road. Effectively hopeless. And a unique intellectual hopelessness that stimulates and renews itself continually.

That's not a pre-Christian position. Although it's possible that you may find some sect with that position.

[Immanuel Can]

But we do have to recall our Richard Weaver and his (Platonic) ideas that we certainly all have our “metaphysical dreams of the world”. Even a no-metaphysic is actually a metaphysic.

Yes, this is true. We all have a metaphysic. Even the position "There is no such thing as a metaphysic" is a position on metaphysics.

But I find that people who say the latter are not actually devoid of a metaphysic -- they simply have one that is so unexamined, so suppositionally-deep in their own minds, that they have never even thought of examining it, of finding out what it is composed of, or questioning whether it might not be quite right. They think they dwell in a metaphysic so patently obvious, so unimpeachably true and certain that it simply would be absurd to question it at all...so that they don't think of it as a metaphysic at all.

For them, it's just "true." And anybody who does not assume their metaphysic must simply be deranged, deluded or in denial...and at least deserving of scorn, but not of serious examination.

[Immanuel Can]

...the world he sees is a sort of determined hell that cannot better itself, and cannot be redeemed. His Vision is the end of the road. Effectively hopeless. And a unique intellectual hopelessness that stimulates and renews itself continually.

I don't know what Gary really wants. I don't think he wants out of that, though. I think he finds it comforting, in a strange way. To position himself as Fate's eternal victim gives him a blessed freedom from all responsibility, and grants him perpetual self-pity...both of which can be very soothing. No blame, no duty, no responsibility, no options, no culpability and no way out, and no end... And it means, "I'm already in the right position, the only one I can possibly take; I have no blame for where I am, and can do nothing about it. I'm right to be as I am."

And in such a worldview, one does not have to look at one's own choices or one's own behaviour. It's all been done TO one, and one is not going to learn anything from self-examination or from assuming any blame for one's lot. The bitter Fates have caused it all, and poor, suffering me is swept up in Sisyphean helplessness. One is one's own tragic hero, in an opera only oneself is ever really enjoying.

Gary's not stupid. That much is evident. He can problem-solve, if he wants. But in relation to his own general view of life, he does not seem interested in solving the central problems. He wishes to stay as he is.

We've been talking a long while, and I have yet to see Gary lift one finger to make his own life better. Maybe he does, and just doesn't say. But he seems to return constantly with the same level of misery, as if even the latest such effort has merely proved the failure of that possibility once again. He wallows in it, up to his armpits. And he gets mad as a wet hen when anybody suggests he could make different choices, and thereby might get better results. It's not about better results, it seems; it's about justifying staying with the same results.

Gary will probably be better when Gary makes different choices about how Gary interprets his own situation and his own life. But to do that, he's going to have to give up the pleasure of wallowing and excusing...and that's hard to do, when that sort of self-justification has become one's chief consolation in life. He needs help with a new mindset; a metanoia, if you will. And given his self-reinforcing worldview, that help will have to come to him from outside ; but will come only when he's ready to seek it.