Sex and Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I wrote: The Vedas, in my view, represent a very full outline and description of man's situation.

As above. I acknowledged what you said. But it didn't really answer the question.

the Bhagavad Gita

I've read it. It's actually quite poetic and charming in form, and I enjoyed it as a reading experience; but, of course, it's still quite ghastly, from a Christian ethical perspective, in the fatalism and willingness to accept destruction and death that it articulates. If you have something from the Gita that should make us believe it's superior, please feel free to point it out. I have a copy, right here. We can talk about this.

[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...

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

I make a separation between the *you* singular that I often speak to (or 'at' when conversation proves impossible) and some generality of men.

The reasons I give as to why you-singular should at the very least examine and entertain different ideas and different points of view I have stated now 4-5 times. One, you have made precisely ZERO progress in influencing or in converting any other person to your views. 2) You achieve exactly the opposite. You drive people away from understanding of the principles operative in your religious system. So, if only in this area, I suggest that a revision of your system could well serve your apologetic efforts.

What is it that you see me as proposing or defending when I refer to 'the Vedas'? I have referred to some ideas that have location in some Vedic writing. But I am not here as an apologist of either the Vedas or anything so specific. I do not discount this body of knowledge however. And indeed it interests me a great deal.

Are you interested in knowing what interests me? What 'resonates' with me? Is that your question? Or are you looking for some type of ultimate defense of the philosophies of the Indian Subcontinent?

[Immanuel Can]

you-singular should at the very least examine and entertain different ideas and different points of view I have stated now 4-5 times.

Already done.

Now, can you explain why your worldview should be regarded as "superior"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

First, I have offered some suggestive responses so your characterization that I do not, is false. And by stating that, and avoiding receiving the answers I do offer, you set yourself up for what is given back to you.

I think the Vedic matrix of literature and scripture (excuse me for using a very general term to define something quite broad) offers fuller metaphysical descriptions of life in this realm. And explains better how one, a man, can respond to incarnated existence. So by offering a fuller picture of both Prakriti (the nature of nature) and Purusha (the nature of soul or awareness) one has a better intellectual system in hand, and thus allows for a better response to the demands of incarnated existence (i.e. life).

I wrote: The Vedas, in my view, represent a very full outline and description of man's situation.

As above. I acknowledged what you said. But it didn't really answer the question.

the Bhagavad Gita

I've read it. It's actually quite poetic and charming in form, and I enjoyed it as a reading experience; but, of course, it's still quite ghastly, from a Christian ethical perspective, in the fatalism and willingness to accept destruction and death that it articulates. If you have something from the Gita that should make us believe it's superior, please feel free to point it out. I have a copy, right here. We can talk about this.

If that is your description of what the Bhagavad Gita has to offer, I suggest that you read it badly and failed to understand its 'message'.

If you have something from the Gita that should make us believe it's superior, please feel free to point it out.

But I started with the statement that your version of 'the soul' is inadequate, that is one, and 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'. That is, in some essential aspect and not necessarily our personality (which is part of nature and prakriti).

That is a 'superior' idea not only in and of itself but for what it connotes. Second, if 'soul' is eternal, as it is proposed in the Gita (and in most of Vedanta) then the notion of eternal punishment is not possible, likely nor necessary. 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.

And it is a 'superior doctrine' for a host of reasons. I say 'doctrine' without offering a proof that it is, really, that way. As far as I know there is no science based way to know and to have solid, absolute answers to many of these questions. We do have 'our sense' of what is real and true. We also have 'reports' (from others). And we also have scriptural reports. And then we have the reports of men who have lived their lives in 'spiritual experience'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Will you continue post after post, asking one question after another? When will you yourself respond?

Here BTW is Aldous Huxley's introduction to one version of the Bhagavad Gita. It is worthy of consideration and is, at least, interesting and relevant to our topic.

So I might say that a man, a rather accomplished man, read the same Gita that you did but came to quite different conclusions about its worth. What shall 'we' make of that?

[Immanuel Can]

When will you yourself respond?

I'm responding to your claim of worldview superiority, by asking the reasonable question: how do you establish your perspective as superior. And you won't respond.

...a man, a rather accomplished man, read the same Gita that you did but came to quite different conclusions about its worth.

I'm not speaking with Aldous Huxley, am I? I'm speaking with you. And it wasn't Huxley's claim, but yours.

Again, you try to sidestep the task your brought upon yourself by your claim. And we know what that means. You can't do it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm responding to your claim of worldview superiority, by asking the reasonable question: how do you establish your perspective as superior.

But to answer that question we would have to acknowledge that all people, and any person, and certainly you in your case, will 'establish their perspectives', whatever they are, on the basis of a group of reasons. So how do you justify your sense in the superiority and ultimate rightness of what you believe? You will find that others as well have a similar inventory.

You do so through 1) faith, 2) cultural matrix, 3) reasoning through the literature, 4) association with other people who share, or who do not share, your view of things, and finally 5) what has been revealed to you a) as a result of your direct experience of God and 'things spiritual', and b) perhaps something like 'the law of inertia': the path you chose became 'home' and it gives you things, or rewards you for loyalty and perseverance.

Each of these things require more explanation, I provide them in outline.

In respect to the specific tenets of view that I presented to you -- that the soul is likely not created just prior to birth and installed in a body but rather is eternally part-and-parcel of God; and also that a permanent hell-realm is unlikely, unnecessary and unethical -- my answer is that I regard these views (understandings, facts of reality?) as a step up from those you subscribe to. I.e. they are more rational, make more sense, seem more probable, less inclined to attract fanatical belief.

I establish my larger perspective of the 'superiority' of Eastern metaphysics from the comparative project that I began and undertook over numerous years. Specifically in the metaphysical descriptions which have far more depth and represent a sort of 'metaphysical science'. Also that there are processes of realization (Vedanta philosophy, and yoga practices) that help one to achieve 'self-realization'; inner knowledge. The philosophy and practice of yoga represent processes of self-cultivation (of the spiritual element) that I find far more profound than any such comparable Occidental techniques.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not speaking with Aldous Huxley, am I? I'm speaking with you. And it wasn't Huxley's claim, but yours.

Hold on, let me check. You are right! (I had a moment of doubt but I resolved it. Whew!)

The point however you missed. It is that thoughtful men, within our intellectual traditions, have read the Gita and come to very very different conclusions about it than you did! Your view is shallow indeed. Not absolutely without merit, I shall say, but largely shallow. And this observation fits in with my general view of your grasp of spiritual and religious traditions: You have a prejudiced and limited understanding.

Is it a bit more clear now?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Will you continue post after post, asking one question after another? When will you yourself respond?

[Immanuel Can]

If you have something from the Gita that should make us believe it's superior, please feel free to point it out.

But I started with the statement that your version of 'the soul' is inadequate, that is one, and 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'. That is, in some essential aspect and not necessarily our personality (which is part of nature and prakriti).

I asked what made that view, assuming it's the same as yours, superior to mine. You still haven't given us one single reason to think it is.

Criticizing mine won't fix yours, if it's broken. Then, all we have is two misguided dudes, instead of one. No, you'll have to make a case for your own worldview, if you can.

That is a 'superior' idea not only in and of itself but for what it connotes.

Justify that. What makes belief in a supersoul "better" than the alternatives?

Second, if 'soul' is eternal, as it is proposed in the Gita (and in most of Vedanta) then the notion of eternal punishment is not possible, likely nor necessary.

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.

And what will genuinely make your view "superior" is not its appeal or palatability to you, or to anyone else. It's one simple quality: that is is closer to the truth. Can you show that it is?

As far as I know there is no science based way to know and to have solid, absolute answers to many of these questions.

Well, I think that if you did know more about these things, you'd be less certain of that. There are certainly indicators of which one is "superior," even if there isn't "absolute" certainty.

Remember that it's easier to negate a bad answer than to confirm a good one, sometimes. Karl Popper pointed that out, of course.

What we can rule out is any worldview that science actuall proves is impossible. For example, if science showed us that the universe is temporal and linear, rather than eternal, and did it by observable, measurable scientific laws such as the laws of entropy or the red shift effect, then all worldviews that required the eternal existence of the universe would become scientifically implausible and disproved, no matter how much they might appeal to us personally, and no matter how many people wanted to believe them.

I submit to you that that is exactly what has happened with Eastern mysticisms, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. Science proves that the material universe is not eternal. And these views traditionally have demanded us to believe in the co-eternality of soul and material, of the world and the spiritual, and of the human soul and the divine soul. We cannot believe these things anymore. So either Hinduism and Buddhism will have to revise their cosmologies, or else they will have to be satisfied with being contradicted by all the best science we have.

And in either case, two belief systems in crisis, running afoul of all the scientific evidence, do not look easy to show "superior" to alternatives that posit the linear and temporal existence of the universe, as Theism does.

[Immanuel Can]

...thoughtful men, within our intellectual traditions, have read the Gita and come to very very different conclusions about it than you did...

And thoughtful men within our intellectual tradition have read the Gita and criticized its irrationality and amorality, as I have. So that looks like a wash. In both cases, it would merely be a fallacy anyway: appeal to authority, rather than the furnishing of reasons.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you have something from the Gita that should make us believe it's superior, please feel free to point it out.

But I started with the statement that your version of 'the soul' is inadequate, that is one, and 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'. That is, in some essential aspect and not necessarily our personality (which is part of nature and prakriti).

I asked what made that view, assuming it's the same as yours, superior to mine. You still haven't given us one single reason to think it is.

Because the reasons are quite obvious.

There are two views which I broached as those I think are flawed, incomplete, incorrect and also destructive.

The view that I propose is more accurate, and which is expressed in the metaphysical system that I admire and am drawn to, are these:

1) That the soul, understood as being eternal after it was created (your view), is actually eternal always. Why? Because it is part-and-parcel of the divine being. I.e. it did not come into existence and therefore cannot go out of existence. You accept the latter but not the former.

2) That if a god exists, and if God superintends this life (our existence and manifestation as conscious being in this plane), that it is not in the structure of things that God, described as such, would condemn any creature that is part-and-parcel of him to eternal punishment in a hell-realm.

This view is superior to yours 1) because I believe that it reflects 'reality' and not a hellish contrivance by disturbed minds with an agenda in horrific condemnation. Do you notice what I have done here? I have associated the 'belief' with a troubled psychology. My view is that 'people like you' are forced to believe something as terrifying as a God with a spirit of eternal vengeance by way of psychic and psychological manipulation. It is a form of psychological sadism, not necessarily the truth. In the Vedic interpretation of reality I refer to hell-realms are certain conceived of, but they are not permanent zones of eternal punishment. The idea, based in the philosophy of karma, is that if we perform bad, evil, negative or destructive actions we will, at one point or another, have to live the results that we ourselves created.

So I regard this as a superior view to the view that you hold. That souls are created just prior to their incarnation (I assume this is how you would describe it) but that they go on living eternally, either in a hellish world or a heavenly world depending on whether or not they *accept Jesus Christ as their personal lord* (or whatever is the formula that you adhere to).

You still haven't given us one single reason to think it is.

I have definitely given you reasons. You will not consider them, that's all.

As to those of your third-person plural, Rick and Phyllo (and the other fellow more oriented to your views), maybe they regard my view as better or superior, who can know? Why don't you ask them directly?

[Alexis Jacobi]

...thoughtful men, within our intellectual traditions, have read the Gita and come to very very different conclusions about it than you did...

And thoughtful men within our intellectual tradition have read the Gita and criticized its irrationality and amorality, as I have. So that looks like a wash. In both cases, it would merely be a fallacy anyway: appeal to authority, rather than the furnishing of reasons.

Sure, I grant that.

When you present your 'reasons' for an eternal hell, and a soul that is created at birth and which, if it does not 'accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior', will spend eternity in a hell-realm, you will defend that notion in exactly the same way: a referral to authority.

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.

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. You could attempt to explain the Christian apologetic story, and it would have a certain coherency, but no one would have any reason to take what you are saying as true. The more reasonable assertion is that we are biological computers who come into existence at birth, live here awhile, and then dissolve back into nature (Prakrit). In fact this is (I am supposing here) likely what does mostly occur. Except for that tiny, but significant element in us described as 'soul' or 'atman' in Vedic thought. That 'part' is a part of God and is eternal (according to the view).

[Alexis Jacobi]

As far as I know there is no science based way to know and to have solid, absolute answers to many of these questions.

Well, I think that if you did know more about these things, you'd be less certain of that.

No sir, I have examined numerous of the sources you have recommended over the years and no, nothing is proved. What there mostly is is a great deal of uncertainty about how it is possible, without a designer and instigator, that such wondrous and complex structures (as in biology) have come to be. There is no explanation except the most miraculous one: God puffed it all into being.

But, if I have 'certainty' about those things metaphysical, I have to have a relationship to them, a link, and that link is intuition. The entire area is extremely problematic, to employ a modern term.

Middle English intuicioun, insight, from Late Latin intuitiō, intuitiōn-, a looking at, from Latin intuitus, a look, from past participle of intuērī, to look at, contemplate : in-, on; see in-2 + tuērī, to look at.

It is a kind of 'looking into' with unusual and special features. It is a complex and difficult idea to propose in our modern context.

[Immanuel Can]

But I started with the statement that your version of 'the soul' is inadequate, that is one, and 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'. That is, in some essential aspect and not necessarily our personality (which is part of nature and prakriti).

I asked what made that view, assuming it's the same as yours, superior to mine. You still haven't given us one single reason to think it is.

The view that I propose is more accurate, and which is expressed in the metaphysical system that I admire and am drawn to, are these:

1) That the soul, understood as being eternal after it was created (your view), is actually eternal always. Why? Because it is part-and-parcel of the divine being. I.e. it did not come into existence and therefore cannot go out of existence.

That's a supposition, not a reason or an argument. What are your reasons for believing it?

2) That if a god exists, and if God superintends this life (our existence and manifestation as conscious being in this plane), that it is not in the structure of things that God, described as such, would condemn any creature that is part-and-parcel of him to eternal punishment in a hell-realm.

Again, there's no reason given here that we should believe this. There's just a claim: that if you don't like the idea of Hell, there can't be one. I don't see any warrant for such a conclusion. It's certainly not any kind of logical deduction.

Do you notice what I have done here?

Transparently so. It's called "smearing your opposition" rather than "providing an argument."

The idea, based in the philosophy of karma, is that if we perform bad, evil, negative or destructive actions we will, at one point or another, have to live the results that we ourselves created.

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

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.

I'm still not seeing an argument for any of this. So far, you're just recounting the metaphysical speculation that you prefer. There's no reason to think, so far, it's even plausible; and I've given you the scientific reasons for disbelieving it.

I think, then, "superiority" of that worldview is off the table.