God and morality

[Gary Childress]

With me, we are also faced with the paradox of the nihilist, AJ. One could say of me: for someone who thinks everything is for nought, that guy sure is having a helluva good time.

If the nihilist enjoys himself, is he really a nihilist. This is why N divided nihilists into passive and active. Passive nihilists are emos and edgelords (Mick you rock), while active nihilists are your Novatores, Stirners, and Bradys. These nihilists are artists that take the raw material of meaningless and engage it with aggressive and creative force. They do not resign but indulge in it.

For example. If i blew up the judicial system, that act would grant the judicial system more value than it ever had before. Why. Well, until and unless it is blown up, it has no meaning... is just an ongoing farce, etc. By coming into contact with me, the judicial system has made itself relevant by making its own destruction necessary for it to be meaningful. It reveals and destroys itself through me.

Now, here you could call this nihilism, but its purpose is creative even though it manifests as destruction. Who could say that blowing up a judicial system isn't progress? I mean right minded people... not u guys. You know what i mean.

I also don't feel like a nihilist. I feel like an expeditionist, or a satyr, or a guerrilla fighter... and you won't find me locked up in a basement playing video games and listening to Avenged Sevenfold.

Maybe 'scary' would be a better word than 'nihilistic'.

Why use the terms "destroy" or "blow up"? How about using the words "change for the better"? If the judicial system is working badly, then it needs to change for the better, but does it need to be "destroyed" or "blown up"? I know that you have been royally screwed by the inordinate penalties of exposing your genitals to minors (am I remembering correctly?). That stirs anger and summons words like "destroy" and "blow up". It's not necessarily "wrong" (in the sense that you can't be understood or forgiven for your excess), but that kind of anger is why we need to mend the justice system, maybe make the penalties for self-exposure of genitals less life-destructive to a person who does it. I mean, it would make more sense for a convicted murderer who is not given the death penalty to receive a punishment like that, but exposing genitals, though inappropriate, isn't among the most serious crimes a person can commit in the world.

[promethean75]

"but does it need to be "destroyed" or "blown up"?"

Of course, silly. A criminal justice system operated by a government that allows a free market doesn't have any legitimacy. It would just be a factory for pumping economically depressed blue-collar criminals made by the system into private prisons for profits. Theft, assault, drug abuse, sex crimes, vagrancy, all of these are the side effects of freemarket liberal democracy or third worlds that haven't made it that far yet.

Lol i remember reading in Frank Z's autobiography something about how when a new emerging class of lawyers was born, legislatures were persuaded to create more laws (no matter how tedius) so that the lawyers would have more opportunities to make money. On both sides, state prosecutors and defense lawyers.

p.s. don't say "the subject exposed his genitals". It's too clinical and scientific and it scares the people way more. Just say 'flashed'. They don't get as nervous when you say that.

[Gary Childress]

"but does it need to be "destroyed" or "blown up"?"

Of course, silly. A criminal justice system operated by a government that allows a free market doesn't have any legitimacy. It would just be a factory for pumping economically depressed blue-collar criminals made by the system into private prisons for profits. Theft, assault, drug abuse, sex crimes, vagrancy, all of these are the side effects of freemarket liberal democracy or third worlds that haven't made it that far yet.

Lol i remember reading in Frank Z's autobiography something about how when a new emerging class of lawyers was born, legislatures were persuaded to create more laws (no matter how tedius) so that the lawyers would have more opportunities to make money. On both sides, state prosecutors and defense lawyers.

p.s. don't say "the subject exposed his genitals". It's too clinical and scientific and it scares the people way more. Just say 'flashed'. They don't get as nervous when you say that.

I think what scares people also are words like "destruction" and "blow up". If I stop using "subject exposed his genitals," will you stop using the terms "blow up" or "destroy"? Or if I use the expression "flashed" instead, will you use "change for the better" instead of "destroy" or "blow up"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

OK. What is the "specific outline" of what you want me to do? (Am I interpreting your meaning and intentions correctly?)

Here is Alexis Jacobi’s 10 Point Plan for Gary Childress:

1) Don’t speak ever again of your plight on this forum or any forum where people who are not mentally ill communicate. Realize: We cannot help you; and you cannot make us understand.

2) Reconsider spiritual life even in your context of depression, neurosis, psychosis and occasional hallucination. If you cannot understand why (“what good would it do?”) suspend doubt and make the effort.

3) Work with someone in the therapeutic field who a) has experience with mental illness and b) also has a spiritual understanding.

4) Break away from this specific forum for periods of time. It is a place of conflict, even some meanness. Realize that it cannot be doing you much good.

5) Two times a day walk, exercise in as pacific and bucolic environ as you have near to you. Breathe deeply. Focus on beautiful things.

6) Avoid politics and political debate. It is largely a sick environment and only seems to exacerbate your own internal conflicts.

7) Deliberately and regularly offer your services to something or someone who will benefit from your offering.

8 ) Resolve to break what certainly looks like an ingrained habit of self-cursing. Deliberately replace self-cursing with self-affirmation.

9) Seek companionship with those who, like yourself, are dealing with all that you deal with.

10) Say to yourself and to the world (i.e. to the Universe, to “God”, to what has given you life): “I do not like it, I do not understand it, but I accept exactly what I have been given”.

[promethean75]

11) Stay away from that promethean75 guy he's nothing but bad news.

[promethean75]

"If I stop using "subject exposed his genitals," will you stop using the terms "blow up" or "destroy"?"

I should have to do no such thing because what i said is nonsense. How can a man blow up a judicial system, Gary? A system is an abstract organization of compostite parts that form a conceptual whole. How tf can you blow up a concept with a physical incendiary device, Gary? It can't be done!

[Gary Childress]

OK. What is the "specific outline" of what you want me to do? (Am I interpreting your meaning and intentions correctly?)

Here is Alexis Jacobi’s plan for Gary Childress:

1) Don’t speak ever again of your plight on this forum or any forum where people who are not mentally ill communicate. Realize: We cannot help you; and you cannot make us understand.

2) Reconsider spiritual life even in your context of depression, neurosis, psychosis and occasional hallucination. If you cannot understand why (“what good would it do?”) suspend doubt and make the effort.

3) Work with someone in the therapeutic field who a) has experience with mental illness and b) also has a spiritual understanding.

4) Break away from this specific forum for periods of time. It is a place of conflict, even some meanness. Realize that it cannot be doing you much good.

5) Two times a day walk, exercise in as pacific and bucolic environ as you have near to you. Breathe deeply. Focus on beautiful things.

6) Avoid politics and political debate. It is largely a sick environment and only seems to exacerbate your own internal conflicts.

7) Deliberately and regularly offer your services to something or someone who will benefit from your offering.

8 ) Resolve to break what certainly looks like an ingrained habit of self-cursing. Deliberately replace self-cursing with self-affirmation.

9) Seek companionship with those who, like yourself, are dealing with all that you deal with.

10) Say to yourself and to the world (i.e. to the Universe, to “God”, to what has given you life: “I do not like it, I do not understand it, but I accept exactly what I have been given”.

Hmm. I can go with #3, #4, #7, and #9. Those are things I mostly already do or agree are beneficial.

#8, if you stop acting like a pompous ass over-promoting yourself, I'll stop with my self-derision. How about that?

[Gary Childress]

"If I stop using "subject exposed his genitals," will you stop using the terms "blow up" or "destroy"?"

I should have to do no such thing because what i said is nonsense. How can a man blow up a judicial system, Gary? A system is an abstract organization of compostite parts that form a conceptual whole. How tf can you blow up a concept with physical incendiary devices, Gary? It's impossible!

If a man cannot "blow up" a judicial system, then don't use the term "blow up". Use a term that accurately describes what needs to be done so others won't misinterpret you as advocating for violence.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

Look, you agreed when I asked you if you wanted me to define a path toward potential betterment. And after asking your permission to do so, I submitted my outline. These is no connection on any level between what I do or what I write here with whatever it is that you do or decide to do (or don't do). And it is my opinion that you must observe all of the 10 points. But whether you do or not is not and cannot be any concern of mine. Accept it, reject it, it is entirely up to you.

[Gary Childress]

...

Look, you agreed when I asked you if you wanted me to define a path toward potential betterment. And after asking your permission to do so, I submitted my outline. These is no connection on any level between what I do or what I write here with whatever it is that you do or decide to do. And it is my opinion that you must observe all of the 10 points. But whether you do or not is not and cannot be any concern of mine.

I asked you to provide your outline. I said nothing about agreeing with it or taking it as Gospel.

[promethean75]

"so others won't misinterpret you as advocating for violence."

But I AM advocating for violence. I'm just saying you can't blow up a system. Now, you can blow up a building that is part of the system, sure.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

Look, you agreed when I asked you if you wanted me to define a path toward potential betterment. And after asking your permission to do so, I submitted my outline. These is no connection on any level between what I do or what I write here with whatever it is that you do or decide to do. And it is my opinion that you must observe all of the 10 points. But whether you do or not is not and cannot be any concern of mine.

I asked you to provide your outline. I said nothing about agreeing with it or taking it as Gospel.

That is exactly right. I will, however, provide what I think is a true and insightful conclusion in respect to you and forum participation.

You find ways to get attention and to make yourself and your self-declared sickness a topic of conversation. You must double-down on the insistence that your condition is hopeless, is a horrible misfortune, nothing can be done, because if you did genuinely accept it, and work to remedy what is possible in your circumstances, and did so, you could no longer play for sympathy and, naturally, continue to suck people into the whirlpool of pity that feeds the cycle.

You can’t let that go, it is a somewhat demented life-line.

Therefore (Alexis Jacobi intones in a resonant, thunderous voice ) I recommend that you do not pay any attention to my Ten Point Program! And you must, at the least on a daily if not hourly basis, worsen your condition. Meditate on life’s horrors! Feed on them! Keep on as you have been for years. The world is co-dependent and will feed you what you ask of it.

[promethean75]

Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily by the philosopher samurai.

[phyllo]

What happened to the one true objective morality which came directly from God?

I think you operate from a strange and likely non-productive critical platform. What is it that you desire to achieve? If you can get clear about this within your own self and then articulate it I may be able to interact with you more fruitfully.

One mistake you seem to make is to erroneously project onto me the rôle of ultra-defender of Catholicism. And assume I am to answer any knotty questions you put forth. You seem to have an issue with the general Catholic position on immigration but you have not made this clear. I will say it once more that Catholic social teaching could not ever support or encourage an influx of migrants — say “massive migration” and “illegal migration” — into any host country that results in harm to the social and economic body (and not to speak of the ‘spiritual body’) of that nation. It would be counter the idea and practice of charity.

In respect to the citations you posted, I would imagine that we would have to examine the context of the Encyclicals. The implicit topic may have been specific events and conditions in Europe at the time which created refugees. I am uncertain as it is not my topic.

Now it is true that with Pope Francis and his declaration in respect to Muslim migrants into Europe that his positions are radically supportive of mass migration and seemingly with little regard for the health of the body politic of the host nation. Do you desire that I respond to his radicalism in this area? Is this really an issue that concerns you or, more likely, do you operate from pique and desire to provoke mere conflict?

You must know that within Catholicism, within that Catholic social body, there are factions, debates, disagreements that at times almost become schismatic. It has been right on the edge as a result of policy and liturgical remodeling that began in the late 1950s and gathered strength in the 1960s. Effectively, the integrity of the Church as a guiding authority was severely damaged. Would you like me to interpret this? Or would you prefer to take the lead and reveal your own ideas and views?

I very clearly laid out the genesis of my own inquiry into that perplexing issue “What went wrong?” All that I can reliably report to you is that: Within Catholicism, within Catholic ideation and philosophy, there many valuable jewels that, in my view, should not be dismissed offhand by people who are fundamentally insensitive to that very issue: that of values.

We then circle around and here we are back again examining the core issue: values and meaning. My basic and largest assertion is this: Catholicism and Christianity are essentially One up to a certain point. It is that which molded “Europe”. And Europe was, as Robinson Jeffers pithily said, “the jewel of the world” until effectively the First World War when — when what? How shall we talk about ‘that’? How shall we define and talk about unraveling, suicide, destructive warfare, a mindless but consuming unleashing of degenerative force? How shall we view this and what happens in men’s souls? In my soul, in your soul?

The turn to conservative modes of thought always has to do with a longing and a desire for regeneration. For recovery. For growth and fruitful production. For that reason I mentioned Dawson’s valuable, Catholic-appreciative little book The Historic Reality of Christian Culture: A Way to the Renewal of Human Life.

There is a claim there. And it is a claim that I align with. I put it like this: Within the Christian tradition(s) there are elements of value unlike those of any other tradition (that I am aware of). There is no area of life that is excluded from consideration. It is literally the foundation of who we are and what we are, and it must be defended and explained from those who have become, who embody, the ignorantiae invincibiles of our age.

I desire to shine a light onto some things which you apparently cannot see or are willfully ignoring.

You are defending some aspects of Catholicism. If you answered some "knotty questions", then it would show that you have thought about the questions and answers. In terms of "mass migration", the church is arguing that it's not socially and economically harmful to the host country and that the needs of migrants outweigh any small harm to the hosts.

One can say that Francis' position on was in line with the teachings of Jesus. It's not radical from the Christian perspective. You can start with Matthew 5:43-48

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

If there are factions and debates within Catholicism, or in Christianity, then it's not an objective morality or theology. And perhaps it has no more authority backing it up than something like secular humanism. It seems unlikely that the critical change came in the 1950s and 1960s since the Protestants had issues hundreds of years prior to that time. The important question would be ... was the position of the church closer to what Jesus taught before or after that time?

"Values". Secularists, leftists, marxists, wokists, ... all have values. And they are not destructive, violent, hateful, awful values as conservative often try to suggest.
Which Catholic or Christian values are better and why?
Jesus didn't come to preserve your race, your economy, your society. He came to overturn it, to prepare for the coming change.

Of course, you may not care about what Jesus taught. You may only interested in the RCC as a "successful corporation" which delivered growth and profit to Europe. Some of what you write, sounds like that. So it then becomes a discussion of management rather than theology.

[promethean75]

"but exposing genitals, though inappropriate, isn't among the most serious crimes a person can commit in the world"

I hesitate (because i once saw an ugly lady breastfeeding in public... and instead of being arrested, she got like sixteen likes)... but i have to agree.

But it gets worse. And, this is why all news stations are viable targets. Check this out. If somebody is arrested for a crime not at all related to sex, and this person happens to be a sex offender, the news will announce that "a registered sex offender was arrested today for fraud or for stealing a seeder from Lowe's". Now six hundred thousand people tuning into the evening news know Dave is a sex offender.

Why was it necessary to mention Dave was a sex offender? Was it contextually relevant? And, why aren't the charges of anyone else announced when they are arrested so that "a man convicted of a DUI in 1986 was arrested today for trespassing".

There is no excuse for this nonsense, and like the State that willingly continues to use a costly and ineffective registry system ruining the lives of sex offenders, they too get the dumb end of the barrel.

You can announce to your classmates that you think Bobby has cooties. That's of little consequence. But when you jeopardize the life and livelihood of a man for the rest of his life because you told someone he has cooties, you're gonna get more than a locker room beating. Much much more.