Sex and Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Go for it Alexis - do answer his question! We are all agog.

What particular question -- there are numerous -- should be 'answered'?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The first (recent) comment I made outlines what interests and concerns me:

The major problems and conflicts that IC’s ultra-Christian position arouses are to be located in a not sufficiently thought-through metaphysics. Were the principles better explained, and if dear IC himself understood them, huge progress could be made in his sharing of these principles. Sadly, IC is stuck in a rigid religious story which, many or most, cannot any longer accept. If only because metaphysical categories — the realm of “God” and “soul” — no longer exist for man. I.e. they are not knowable by tangible means, and when philosophy attempts to explain that domain, it constantly fails. So IC has made no headway in well over a decade of effort.

If the fight is between Catholicism and Protestantism that battle will rage endlessly but is largely a waste of time unless the core metaphysics are defined. The metaphysics are however intangible (invisible if you will) and unknowable through mechanical means and science. The only way to “know” is by direct experience and this involves attempting a different methodology (of knowing). But almost no one (on this forum at least) has confidence in such declarations about “other ways of knowing” and most regard such as illusory or as related to mental derangement.

This entire problem dear IC cannot solve and he is in reality useless in helping anyone to solve the problem of metaphysics.

[phyllo]

What particular question -- there are numerous -- should be 'answered'?

Probably this one:

But back to my central question, repeated over and over and never yet having received an answer: what is the basis of your putatively "superior" metaphysic?

[Alexis Jacobi]

...the Christian-Judaic system absolutely must be transcended.

Wait. "Must" by what imperative? What belief compels you to believe there's something wrong with Christian and Jewish ethics? And how does one "transcend" an ethic? What gives you this confidence, this "absolute" mustness you profess here?

It seems obvious one can reject an ethic, or one can recognize an ethic. Fair enough. We all do each. But "transcend" means, "take to a higher plane." That calls for the question, "what is 'higher' than Judeo-Christian ethics, and what makes it 'higher'? Unless you already presupposes you have an ethical basis that is "higher" than those you're criticizing, you'd be unable to criticize them at all, since you'd have no ground to stand on; so what are you presupposing as your "higher" basis?

These questions cannot be dodged with a few rhetorical flourishes, of course. And they aren't simply obvious to everybody. You'll need to spell them out, if we're to know whether or not to agree with you.

My starting point in this new round of exchanges focuses on dear Immanuel's failed apologetic project in well over a decade on this particular forum. The reason I focus on this (or on him) is because I do not see Christian apologetics as making a great deal of headway in influencing or convincing those schooled in the philosophies operating in our present. That is why I note that IC's apologetics, here on this forum, not only do not influence anyone but rather they repel. It seems like a fairly important point to make.

I proposed a few different views, alternative views, which very definitely add metaphysical elements that change the 'picture' offered by conventional Christian view. There were two: One that the soul if it is seen as having eternal existence, had previous eternal existence. And the second touches on the absurdity, because of thorough non-usefulness for any ethical purpose, of the notion of a God that would send an errant soul to an eternal hell-realm.

So if the question is 'What in Christianity must be transcended?' I definitely respond that in these two initial items some part of the answer is presented. Note that I did not critique Christian or Jewish ethics per se. Immanuel misconstrues what I have said. My view is that the Christian metaphysical model, and definitely the model that presents Jesus Christ as a sole possessor of essential, valuable truths as well as the sole gateway to whatever it is ultimately that is presented as being of such extraordinary final value for the Christian, needs very much to be reconsidered and better thought through.

I cannot think of any way to be more fair and civil in presenting some basic ideas.

Unless you already presuppose [that] you have an ethical basis that is "higher" than those you're criticizing, you'd be unable to criticize them at all, since you'd have no ground to stand on; so what are you presupposing as your "higher" basis?

I started with the very core and essential tenet of Christian belief: That the God that is envisioned could or would send a given soul to an eternal hell-realm. I very much believe that in relation to this I have a 'higher' ethic that I defend. And I assert that if I have this ethic, and understand it, that it is therefore impossible that the supreme intelligence of this universe and this entire manifestation would or could hold to such a fantastically cruel principle.

What is the 'ground' that I stand on here? There are various grounds. One is simply that if God is a merciful teacher, and as I understand Christian ethics there is an admonition to be ultra-understanding, patient and also forgiving in regard to our own failures and those of our fellows, the very notion of eternal punishment is rendered ethically impossible.

The second aspect is revealed when the notion of 'eternal soul' is considered in depth. The soul has now and will have forever opportunities to make corrections. To learn, to change and to remodel attitudes. Just as we all have such opportunities now we will have them in the future.

This is why I began with 2 tangible examples (within classic Christianity) of what I believe requires 'transcendence'.

I definitely would go on from this point to another extremely important one: The very idea that Jesus Christ is the sole route or vehicle through which one not only must pass but as the only route to whatever it is that Christians define as 'that most valuable thing' that man can attain. This idea must absolutely be rejected and that also means transcended. And I believe that there are coherent alternatives within other metaphysical systems that help to explain why this is so.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Reiterating IC] "But back to my central question, repeated over and over and never yet having received an answer: what is the basis of your putatively "superior" metaphysic?"

But I have already made suggestions -- and this is all I or anyone can do -- as to how such questions can be answered. It is only a given person who within their own understanding and within their subjective platform of realization and decision who can make any choice or decision about what is *true* as it pertains to metaphysical questions. I already said this Phyllo. I admitted it as a primary point.

There is nothing in metaphysical truths, which are different and distinct from scientific quantifiable truths, that can be proved through a verbal formula. Nothing. So the ideas that come to us by those who present such ideas can only be received by a given person and considered by one's 'intuition' and then instituted in the life of that person. As a result of living out through such ephemeral truths I propose that one does receive verification. That is the experience of those men who live through their spirituality.

I do not deny this means of verification to the Christian believer. Because I know that they verify those elements of metaphysical truth that are part-and-parcel of metaphysical reality. But metaphysical reality is part-and-parcel of this manifestation and is not 'possessed' by any specific religious school or institution. Christians do not 'possess' these truths and when they assert that Jesus Christ is the sole dole-outer of them, they present us with an absolute and sheer mistake. It is 'incorrect view' and false view. That is not the way it works in this field called "earth existence' and life itself.

Now, how can any of what I say here be verified in terms similar to scientific verification? For fucks sake man, it cannot! Only you can make the verifications through your own experiential science.

[phyllo]

So, everyone has their own "superior" metaphysics, verified entirely by their own feelings and experiences.

Which goes against the idea that there is an objectively true metaphysics, a metaphysics that applies to everyone.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So, everyone has their own "superior" metaphysics, verified entirely by their own feelings and experiences.

Which goes against the idea that there is an objectively true metaphysics, a metaphysics that applies to everyone.

What I see here, Phyllo, is that you are an example of an *uncertain man*. You yourself struggle within this epistemological domain and as long as I have been reading you on this forum it is always the same: You yourself have no 'certainty' because you have not verified anything. What 'ground' do you stand on then? What 'world' do you live in?

You are taking stabs at an answer. It surely must sound like I am suggesting that, therefore, we make up our metaphysics. That is clearly what modern man says today. "It is all made up". At the very least you verify one aspect of what I am asserting. Modern man, given his predicates and epistemology, has no way to know or to verify all of that which I refer to as metaphysical.

Is there a 'metaphysics that applies to everyone'? Well, Brother Immanuel definitely insists that there is! It is a fundamental concept within conventional Christianity. And religious fanatics take the basic idea, possess it, and attempt to convert others on the basis of the extreme admonition that if you do not accept, to eternal hell they will go! I say the idea requires revision.

Are you asking me, Alexis Jacobi, to provide a verbal formula to little Phyllo to help him out of the epistemological confusion? That is not the right way to go about getting the *answer*. I would say "Make the inquiry within your own self".

Did you ever read Plato's Seventh Epistle? He makes reference to something, something alive like a spark, that is potentially transmitted into a soul by virtue of (what he defines as) philosophical practice.

What is it that kindles and is kindled Phyllo?

There neither is nor ever will be a treatise of mine on the subject. For it does not admit of exposition like other branches of knowledge; but after much converse about the matter itself and a life lived together, suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and thereafter sustains itself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Which goes against the idea that there is an objectively true metaphysics, a metaphysics that applies to everyone.

The issue that you bring up here is definitely fundamental to the broad consideration of the issue. How many hundreds of times, do you think, that this 'issue' has been broached on this forum alone? It is the never-ending retort of the uncertain. I think that what *you* want from me is for me to present you with an argument, a paragraph, where a verbal formula is presented that will cinch the issue for you. And if I do not do that, if I cannot do that, you will say "Oh right, yes, all metaphysical truths are merely invented". And return to a variation on an apathetic philosophical stance.

But that is exactly where you live, Phyllo. And that is where we live.

What goes against the idea of an absolute metaphysic that applies to everyone is that everyone lives in a mutable, subjective 'world'. It is quite possible that there does 'exist' both a metaphysical realm and something 'absolute' within it, but down here, under the murky waters of creation, and among people who do not have any means of arriving at certainty at any level within themselves, there sure seems to be nothing but endless argument and difference of opinion.

I applaud your clarity on this issue. But *you* are only at the very start of what could only be a voyage of discovery.

Remember, I am responding to Immanuel Can and his unsuccessful decades long apologetic failure. I am broaching the topic, certainly, and proposing that at the least there are other sources that propose 'solutions' and expound 'answers'.

[phyllo]

What I see here, Phyllo, is that you are an example of an *uncertain man*. You yourself struggle within this epistemological domain and as long as I have been reading you on this forum it is always the same: You yourself have no 'certainty' because you have not verified anything. What 'ground' do you stand on then? What 'world' do you live in?

I'm going to ignore all your discussions of me.

You are taking stabs at an answer. It surely must sound like I am suggesting that, therefore, we make up our metaphysics. That is clearly what modern man says today. "It is all made up". At the very least you verify one aspect of what I am asserting. Modern man, given his predicates and epistemology, has no way to know or to verify all of that which I refer to as metaphysical.

If we are not "making it up" then all intuitions about metaphysics ought to end up in the same place eventually. Isn't that so?

Is there a 'metaphysics that applies to everyone'? Well, Brother Immanuel definitely insists that there is! It is a fundamental concept within conventional Christianity. And religious fanatics take the basic idea, possess it, and attempt to convert others on the basis of the extreme admonition that if you do not accept, to eternal hell they will go! I say the idea requires revision.

If one looks at a quick and dirty definition of metaphysics:

Metaphysics is the study of the most elementary features of reality, including existence, objects and their properties, possibility and necessity, space and time, change, causation, and the relation between matter and mind. It is one of the oldest branches of philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

It certainly seems like there is one objective metaphysics applicable to all. Otherwise, everyone has their own reality??

Are you asking me, Alexis Jacobi, to provide a verbal formula to little Phyllo to help him out of the epistemological confusion? That is not the right way to go about getting the *answer*. I would say "Make the inquiry within your own self".

Surely, such an inquiry could not lead to different metaphysics for different people.

Even if the knowledge comes from within oneself, it's a universal knowledge, an objective truth.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm going to ignore all your discussions of me.

Why is that? You and I and all of us are the subjects. Man is the subject. We are men. Therefore we are subjects here.

If we are not "making it up" then all intuitions about metaphysics ought to end up in the same place eventually. Isn't that so?

I don't know. How do you deal with that question and its answer? And what are the implications of the 'answer' you come to?

If one looks at a quick and dirty definition of metaphysics:

Did that definition help you?

It certainly seems like there is one objective metaphysics applicable to all. Otherwise, everyone has their own reality??

Everyone does seem, at least seen in one sense, to have their own 'reality'. It is called subjectivity.

Surely, such an inquiry could not lead to different metaphysics for different people.

I don't know. How do you answer the question?

Even if the knowledge comes from within oneself, it's a universal knowledge, an objective truth.

What is this Doctrine that you preach? What will I gain if I assent?

[phyllo]

I'm going to ignore all your discussions of me.

Why is that? You and I and all of us are the subjects. Man is the subject. We are men. Therefore we are subjects here.

Because you don't know much about me. Therefore, you speak from ignorance.

If we are not "making it up" then all intuitions about metaphysics ought to end up in the same place eventually. Isn't that so?

I don't know. How do you deal with that question and its answer? And what are the implications of the 'answer' you come to?

Given enough time, effort and skill, everyone would end up at the truth of it.

If one looks at a quick and dirty definition of metaphysics:

Did that definition help you?

It helps move the discussion along.

It certainly seems like there is one objective metaphysics applicable to all. Otherwise, everyone has their own reality??

Everyone does seem, at least seen in one sense, to have their own 'reality'. It is called subjectivity.

In the sense that one has personal preferences which is a sort of "own reality". Your feelings about chocolate ice cream are uniquely your own.
But your feelings about metaphysics do not change the underlying metaphysics which exists.

Even if the knowledge comes from within oneself, it's a universal knowledge, an objective truth.

What is this Doctrine that you preach? What will I gain if I assent?

That there is a truth.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm giving you the respect of taking your view seriously enough to engage it, and to ask the right question; which is exactly what we're here for. It that isn't enough respect to make you happy, I'll just learn to live with you being unhappy.

But the silence on the question and the excuses to avoid answering it are more eloquent than anything you could say, actually. I think I have the answer I need.

Immanuel! For God's sake man! You had the answer even before you got started.

Actually, not at all. I can't do your work for you. I have no idea why you think this worldview you are promoting -- Vedic? -- is supposed to be rationally compelling and superior to my own Theistic view. And I'm actually very eager to find out if you've got anything that might challenge my worldview, because it's a great opportunity for me to refine or change my own thinking, if I can find what is called-for under the circumstances. But I have no idea why you think this Vedic view is well-founded. I know of no rational defense for it, no grounds sufficient to warrant the level of confidence you've expressed in its superiority. And I'm very interested in knowing what you've got.

However, all I can note is that every time I ask you to defend it, you run. And usually, you try to deflect me into a defensive position, by suggesting something about me as a person, or floating some insult about my own worldview...but you fail to defend your own, and to demonstrate the superiority of it that you have claimed. This is what you did in your last message as well, manifestly.

What can I conclude but that you cannot defend this superior worldview you have claimed to have attained?

[Alexis Jacobi]

How does it come about that men fall apart?

Finally, a really good question. Why do you believe the Vedas have the answer?

Why particularly do you find that question to be good?

The Vedas, in my view, represent a very full outline and description of man's situation. Certainly I would say that as far as explanations of our existence here, and guiding ideas to hold to, the Bhagavad Gita is many many times superior to the Jewish Bible and the documents that make up the Christian Gospels.

I do not know if I would say 'the answer'. I would say 'source' (in the sense of fountain or spring).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Actually, not at all. I can't do your work for you. I have no idea why you think this worldview you are promoting -- Vedic? -- is supposed to be rationally compelling and superior to my own Theistic view. And I'm actually very eager to find out if you've got anything that might challenge my worldview, because it's a great opportunity for me to refine or change my own thinking, if I can find what is called-for under the circumstances. But I have no idea why you think this Vedic view is well-founded. I know of no rational defense for it, no grounds sufficient to warrant the level of confidence you've expressed in its superiority. And I'm very interested in knowing what you've got.

However, all I can note is that every time I ask you to defend it, you run. And usually, you try to deflect me into a defensive position, by suggesting something about me as a person, or floating some insult about my own worldview...but you fail to defend your own, and to demonstrate the superiority of it that you have claimed. This is what you did in your last message as well, manifestly.

No my dear one, it is not 'running'. That is what you would like it to be. That 'fits your narrative' as they say these days.

I have no idea why you think this worldview you are promoting -- Vedic? -- is supposed to be rationally compelling and superior to my own Theistic view.

The way you state this is off. I do not deny or exclude a 'theism' necessarily, 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.

If your so-called 'rational' theism defines a God who would or could send a soul to an eternal hell-realm, the God you define, and possibly much else that accretes around your POV and ethics, is inaccurate and also psychologically destructive. I brought this up as a tangible starting-point and one angle from which to view your system of belief.

And I'm actually very eager to find out if you've got anything that might challenge my worldview, because it's a great opportunity for me to refine or change my own thinking

In what areas recently have you changed your thinking recently? That is, in respect to your Evangelical Christian views or in theology generally? Do you see your views and understanding as being 'in motion', i.e. not fixed, open to revision?

But I have no idea why you think this Vedic view is well-founded.

I wrote: The Vedas, in my view, represent a very full outline and description of man's situation. Certainly I would say that as far as explanations of our existence here, and guiding ideas to hold to, the Bhagavad Gita is many many times superior to the Jewish Bible and the documents that make up the Christian Gospels in terms of a developed metaphysics.

I know of no rational defense for it, no grounds sufficient to warrant the level of confidence you've expressed in its superiority. And I'm very interested in knowing what you've got.

What defenses of it are you familiar with? You say you are unaware of rational defenses. Which have you examined?

What I 'have' is just what I began with: some comments about a few different things. One being how it is that you persist over a decade in working apologetic angles with zero success. That is an observation and a question. Because I am interested in the issue of how the principles that underlie both Christianity and Vedic metaphysics can be isolated from their matrix and, as I say, 'better explained'.

The other statement I made, or observation, had to do 1) with the nature of the soul and 2) with the absurdity of the Christian notion of eternal hell. These were and are important points in relation to larger points, more fulsome explanations and outlines, that seem relevant to me.

Must I have more specifically? Why are these issues and question insufficient?

by suggesting something about me as a person

There are two 'realms' and each have relevancy. One is the realm of ideas -- pure ideas perhaps. The other realm is that of the persons who hold, wield and employ their ideas. I regard 'fanatic Christians' as examples of the former. Yes, it has to do with their ideas, but it also has to do with an 'attitude'. The fundamentalist attitude or stance has both positive and negative features. You are a fundamentalist. And the critiques that I offer should be taken in this sense. It is a fair approach, and a necessary one.

[Immanuel Can]

How does it come about that men fall apart?

Finally, a really good question. Why do you believe the Vedas have the answer?

Why particularly do you find that question to be good?

The Vedas, in my view...

But what reasons can you give that anybody else, me or anybody reading here, should share that view?