Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

See? All is perfect!

[iambiguous]

ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS!!!

ME:

Iambiguous: I can cobble together some answers for you, but what most interests me is your own position in respect to these questions. One of the most alarming things about our present -- politically, socially, religiously, economically -- is to come into contact with people who, on one hand, put forth absolutist-type declarations about *what is* and what is *right* and what is needed, when alongside all of these declarations one gets the sense that most people exist within a framelessness where the very ground has been removed from under their feet and there are so many competing Stories and truth-assertions, which contradict each other, that it results I think in a sort of narrative-numbness.

Okay, so what do those like you do? You propound a "spiritual/philosophical" frame of mind up in the intellectual clouds. The ground becomes the intellectual clouds themselves.

One of the terms I employ is, I think, a good one: desperation.

syn: despair, desperation, despondency refer to a state of mind caused by circumstances that seem too much to cope with. despair suggests total loss of hope, usu. accompanied by apathy and low spirits: He sank into despair after the bankruptcy. desperation is a state in which loss of hope drives a person to struggle against circumstances, with utter disregard of consequences: In desperation, they knocked down the door. despondency is a state of deep gloom due to loss of hope and a sense of futility and resignation: despondency after a serious illness.

I know that you have some reason or other to desire me to make some definitive statements, but as I say I do not see that as the central thing to be talked about.

Well, so far, this is exactly what we have come to expect from you: to stay as far from any definitive assessment of how you yourself connect the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then as you possibly can.

1) What is your take on the day that you die?

1) If you mean to ask if I accept the Christian picture my answer is that I see all religious pictures as attempts to concretize into conceptualizable terms what cannot be conceptualized. The pictures vary, but there is always a picture, and we need pictures, but they also seem to hang us up. The entry into death, the departure from our vehicle, is it seems to me inconceivable since one leaves the conceived territory. You could as well ask about existence prior to entry into the body and, examining that picture, you'd have to conceive of some level of existence on some plane or other, or in any case something like a *soul* that blends with and becomes unified with everything in the physical human being that depends on biological and physical matters and which determines so much in our world.

I am uncertain if that part of us -- that part which is aware and conceives -- has even come to be since it has seemed to me that whatever it is, is eternal. Then, the thing to examine is *time*. There are so many questions about *time* and they all seem to resolve into mystical-like conceptions. So, how could anything be 'eternal' when time exists and seems so vast and in a sense terrifying and overwhelming?

So, you're not sure what becomes of you on the day you day. But "something" does seem eternal there. Given the "mystical" reality of time itself. Then whatever this...

"So, how could anything be 'eternal' when time exists and seems so vast and in a sense terrifying and overwhelming?"

...means for all practical purposes on the day that you do die.

2) Leaving aside for now your more pedagogical assessments of Christianity...God and religion...how do you connect the dots existentially between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave and what you imagine the fate of mere mortals to be on the other side?

2) Largely through a rather simplistic lens that I absorbed through my contact with Vedic metaphysical philosophy. Christianity presents us with a *picture* that is refracted through a Hebrew lens. And that was further refracted (the word implies a breaking apart but I'd also add in synthesis) when that vision clashed and was absorbed by the Greek concept-models. Those early centuries have been described as "a confusion of ideas and a confusion of peoples". That was an effect of the Roman empire and its conquest of different peoples, bringing them into association. Everything got blended together or to put it differently it became necessary to try to create bridges between one way of seeing and conceiving and some other which was very different. Not only was there syncretism on religious and mythical levels, but in all realms of thought.

In my view the metaphysical philosophy of the Bhagavad-Gita better explains what the Christian scriptures attempt to define. So in this sense the Vedic notions can help to illustrate what is metaphysically important in Christianity. My reference point would be the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita:

This chapter expounds on the two kinds of human nature—the saintly and the demoniac. Sri Krishna explains that the saintly-nature develops in humans by cultivating the modes of goodness, by following the instructions given in the scriptures, and purifying the mind with spiritual practices. Such behavior attracts daivī sampatti or godlike qualities, eventually leading to God-realization. Contrary to this, the demoniac-nature develops by associating with modes of passion and ignorance and materially focused lifestyles that breed unwholesome traits in human personality. This leads the soul finally to a hell-like existence.

Sri Krishna enumerates the saintly virtues of those endowed with a divine nature and then describes the demoniac qualities that should be shunned consciously. Else, these will drag the soul further into ignorance and samsara or the cycle of life and death. In the end, Sri Krishna declares that the knowledge of the scriptures helps in overcoming ignorance and passion. They also guide us to make the right choices in life. Therefore, we must understand their teachings and injunctions and accordingly perform our actions in this world.

Uh, let's go back...

Leaving aside for now your more pedagogical assessments of Christianity...God and religion...how do you connect the dots existentially between the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave and what you imagine the fate of mere mortals to be on the other side?

3) Is there anything in the vicinity of a God, the God in your current frame of mind? How about Judgment Day? Immortality? Salvation? Moral Commandments? Sins?

3) *In the vicinity of God* is a curious expression. My view is that it is our own awareness, our own living consciousness, that is the best thing to focus on if *God* is to be conceived. So, it is always an internal affair. Judgment Day, in my mind, means simply that we are always in a process of judgment. If we manage to hone or sharpen our awareness it is inevitable that we enter into a process of examination of self (self in the world). The greater the awareness, the greater the sense of grief or embarrassment about all that we have done or thought on a road to what we hope was self-satisfaction. The Vedic idea is of *material entanglement*. We get trapped by our striving, our needs, our craving, our ambitions, and these cause us to do many things against our better judgment. But any rise in awareness is always internal.

Sat-Chit-Ananda is a Vedantic statement in Sanskrit (a 3D chess sort of language) that implies that Being is eternal. In that sense there is something in us that is 'eternal' while it is also true that a great deal that is exterior and mutable all passes away and reverts back to its mutable elements.

Again, AJ, what I am requesting of you here is this: that in regard to your moral convictions on this side of the grave, how do you factor God and religion into that insofar as the behaviors that you do choose here and now are connected to what you imagine the fate of your very existence itself will be on the other side of the grave....there and then.

4) And how do you anticipate things like race and ethnicity and sexual orientation factor into it?

4) The issue of *race* is totally separate from that of *sexual orientation*. I have been puzzled why it is that *race* is of concern to you. I gather it was because you were raised up in an American 'white supremacy' but then, as with your Christian faith, everything was assaulted and you concluded that race-identity is not a 'good' but is a 'bad'? If you explain a bit more it would be helpful.

No, it's not what any of us as individuals think about race. That, from my frame of mind, is rooted existentially in dasein. Instead, it's how our belief in God and religion get factored into this. Given the extent to which after death you yourself believe there is a God and a religious path to immortality and salvation. Does it matter what the color of your skin is or your ethnic background or your sexual preferences are?

Or if you are a Jew? Given that Jesus Christ Himself was a Jew.

This part:

"Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was circumcised, was baptized by John the Baptist, began his own ministry, and was often referred to as "rabbi". Jesus debated with fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables, and gathered followers." wiki.

Your take on that.

5) And if you were really, really pressed to actually demonstrate empirically, experientially, experimentally, etc., that what you believe "in your head" is in fact true, how would you go about that?

5) The proofs that tend to be convincing, for me, are evidenced by what I sense when I come in contact with a person. They carry their *spiritual dimensions* along with them. It is evident in how they carry themselves and in other ways like refinement, grace, intelligence, circumspection and a great deal else. And these things are carried culturally and transmitted from generation to generation.

Okay, but on the other hand...

5) And if you were really, really pressed to actually demonstrate empirically, experientially, experimentally, etc., that what you believe "in your head" is in fact true, how would you go about that?

HIM:

The thing, Iambiguous, is that you have such wretchedly poor comprehension skills that when one does answer you, you fail to understand.

The other aspect of talking with you is that you actually only want the answers that you have already outlined as answers. That is, you only want the answers that are really the answers that you have concocted, if that makes sense.

In my view you really really need to go up into what you call the philosophical clouds and get much more familiar with the backgrounding in the larger sense to the questions you have.

How can it not embarrass him to be reduced down to "substanceless" posts like this? Or, to paraphrase JB, "you who are so good with walls of words, and at keeping things vague".

As in up in the philosophical clouds vague.

[Harbal]

Now, I wouldn't argue for formal intervention by a moderator, but even informally, as philosophers and people of good sense, we don't make it out-of-court to character-assassinate, troll or bully here. We let it happen, and don't call it out, and then get into it ourselves, sometimes...and it drags the level of conversation down into the gutter, and keeps us from getting anywhere.

And where are we trying to get? This place is a rare gem, and that is because -unlike the ever increasing majority of internet forums- the moderators leave us mostly to our own devices. Surely we are adult enough, and tough enough, to deal with any beyond the pale behaviour amongst ourselves. Don't undervalue the freedom we have here.

[phyllo]

Now, I wouldn't argue for formal intervention by a moderator, but even informally, as philosophers and people of good sense, we don't make it out-of-court to character-assassinate, troll or bully here. We let it happen, and don't call it out, and then get into it ourselves, sometimes...and it drags the level of conversation down into the gutter, and keeps us from getting anywhere.

And where are we trying to get? This place is a rare gem, and that is because -unlike the ever increasing majority of internet forums- the moderators leave us mostly to our own devices. Surely we are adult enough, and tough enough, to deal with any beyond the pale behaviour amongst ourselves. Don't undervalue the freedom we have here.

Most of the posts on this forum are not philosophy. Most of them are banter and personal attacks.

[Harbal]

Now, I wouldn't argue for formal intervention by a moderator, but even informally, as philosophers and people of good sense, we don't make it out-of-court to character-assassinate, troll or bully here. We let it happen, and don't call it out, and then get into it ourselves, sometimes...and it drags the level of conversation down into the gutter, and keeps us from getting anywhere.

And where are we trying to get? This place is a rare gem, and that is because -unlike the ever increasing majority of internet forums- the moderators leave us mostly to our own devices. Surely we are adult enough, and tough enough, to deal with any beyond the pale behaviour amongst ourselves. Don't undervalue the freedom we have here.

Most of the posts on this forum are not philosophy. Most of them are banter and personal attacks.

Well I think there is a healthy mix.

[Immanuel Can]

And I stick with my understanding that you are a wind bag, completely devoid of any original thought, having accumulated all your various ideas and opinions from the many dubious books you claim to have read, and bored us all with quotations from.

I get what you're getting out of this exchange, H. It's fun to goad somebody who's being pompous, pretentious and insulting. What I don't get is what AJ is getting out of it: instead of dealing with issues, he seems to love to say spiteful, petty things about particular persons, including yourself.

Now, you're having fun, poking at over-seriousness, and tossing out quips...so that makes a kind of sense. It's an indoor sport.

But what fun is he having? He's certainly not advancing his status by lowering himself into ground-fighting with you, and his status as sage and orator seems to be what he is most jealous of guarding. Do sages and orators go down into the mud and roll around? Do they play by means of ad hominem attacks? Jesters and provocateurs might, just for kicks, and because they're not protecting any bloated posture of respectability anyway; but isn't it obvious that doing so only diminshes the status of one aspiring to be a shining sage and to inform the world?

AJ...if you're serious about being taken seriously, what are you doing down here?

None of us are going to change the world from this forum, and if Jacobi had the substance he pretends, he would be out there exerting the influence he attempts, and fails at, here. I don't say there is anything wrong with that, but I do find his condescension and attitude of superiority hard to stomach. Still, he's just doing what he does, and I'm doing what I do, and I'm fine with that.

Hey, I get you. It makes sense.

I don't get him.

[phyllo]

Well I think there is a healthy mix.

Sure. You think it's a gem.

But people who want to have a philosophical discussion probably disagree.

I think that AJ tries to do that, but pretty quickly it descends into something that is not philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, I wouldn't argue for formal intervention by a moderator, but even informally, as philosophers and people of good sense, we don't make it out-of-court to character-assassinate, troll or bully here. We let it happen, and don't call it out, and then get into it ourselves, sometimes...and it drags the level of conversation down into the gutter, and keeps us from getting anywhere.

And where are we trying to get? This place is a rare gem, and that is because -unlike the ever increasing majority of internet forums- the moderators leave us mostly to our own devices. Surely we are adult enough, and tough enough, to deal with any beyond the pale behaviour amongst ourselves. Don't undervalue the freedom we have here.

The thing about freedom is that it's never an end in itself. Freedom is freedom TO DO something. The question is, what are we using our freedom to do here?

Is it just to flame each other? If that's it, it's a pretty low-grade forum.

But I don't think it is that. I think what we want here is the freedom to explore more challenging ideas. And the bullying, the ad hominems, the petty behaviour...these things don't increase our freedom to do what we want to do; they inhibit it. They interfere. They derail. They contribute nothing. They waste time. They distract.

So shouldn't we be making better use of our freedom?

[Harbal]

Now, I wouldn't argue for formal intervention by a moderator, but even informally, as philosophers and people of good sense, we don't make it out-of-court to character-assassinate, troll or bully here. We let it happen, and don't call it out, and then get into it ourselves, sometimes...and it drags the level of conversation down into the gutter, and keeps us from getting anywhere.

And where are we trying to get? This place is a rare gem, and that is because -unlike the ever increasing majority of internet forums- the moderators leave us mostly to our own devices. Surely we are adult enough, and tough enough, to deal with any beyond the pale behaviour amongst ourselves. Don't undervalue the freedom we have here.

The thing about freedom is that it's never an end in itself. Freedom is freedom TO DO something. The question is, what are we using our freedom to do here?

Is it just to flame each other? If that's it, it's a pretty low-grade forum.

But I don't think it is that. I think what we want here is the freedom to explore more challenging ideas. And the bullying, the ad hominems, the petty behaviour...these things don't increase our freedom to do what we want to do; they inhibit it. They interfere. They derail. They contribute nothing. They waste time. They distract.

So shouldn't we be making better use of our freedom?

How is it freedom if we feel compelled to use it in a certain way? Be honest, IC, you are not here to explore philosophical ideas with anybody; you are here to convince anyone you can of the truth of your expressed beliefs. You are absolutely not open to questioning them. I don't really approve of that, but I certainly wouldn't restrict your freedom to do it, even if I could. There are some here with obnoxious political and social opinions, who are likewise trying to propagate them, and have nothing to do with philosophy. I wouldn't prevent them from being here, either. I actually welcome them, because I get the chance to tell them what I think of them. Honestly, the ad hominems and abuse are by far the lesser of two evils.

[Immanuel Can]

And where are we trying to get? This place is a rare gem, and that is because -unlike the ever increasing majority of internet forums- the moderators leave us mostly to our own devices. Surely we are adult enough, and tough enough, to deal with any beyond the pale behaviour amongst ourselves. Don't undervalue the freedom we have here.

The thing about freedom is that it's never an end in itself. Freedom is freedom TO DO something. The question is, what are we using our freedom to do here?

Is it just to flame each other? If that's it, it's a pretty low-grade forum.

But I don't think it is that. I think what we want here is the freedom to explore more challenging ideas. And the bullying, the ad hominems, the petty behaviour...these things don't increase our freedom to do what we want to do; they inhibit it. They interfere. They derail. They contribute nothing. They waste time. They distract.

So shouldn't we be making better use of our freedom?

How is it freedom if we feel compelled to use it in a certain way?

You're not compelled. Nobody's compelled to use their freedom in any particular way. One can, if one decides one wants to, use freedom to drink turpentine and smoke crack. But there are better and worse uses of freedom.

In the context of a philosophy forum, what's the best way for us to make use of our freedom? Is it on petty insults, or on developing our intellects? We're free to do either here. But there's a better and a worse way to spend time on a philosophy site, for sure.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And where are we trying to get? This place is a rare gem, and that is because -unlike the ever increasing majority of internet forums- the moderators leave us mostly to our own devices. Surely we are adult enough, and tough enough, to deal with any beyond the pale behaviour amongst ourselves. Don't undervalue the freedom we have here.

Pompously, and ultra-pretentiously, with a dash of the irreverent, I commend you for this.

[Harbal]

The thing about freedom is that it's never an end in itself. Freedom is freedom TO DO something. The question is, what are we using our freedom to do here?

Is it just to flame each other? If that's it, it's a pretty low-grade forum.

But I don't think it is that. I think what we want here is the freedom to explore more challenging ideas. And the bullying, the ad hominems, the petty behaviour...these things don't increase our freedom to do what we want to do; they inhibit it. They interfere. They derail. They contribute nothing. They waste time. They distract.

So shouldn't we be making better use of our freedom?

How is it freedom if we feel compelled to use it in a certain way?

You're not compelled. Nobody's compelled to use their freedom in any particular way. One can, if one decides one wants to, use freedom to drink turpentine and smoke crack. But there are better and worse uses of freedom.

In the context of a philosophy forum, what's the best way for us to make use of our freedom? Is it on petty insults, or on developing our intellects? We're free to do either here. But there's a better and a worse way to spend time on a philosophy site, for sure.

Well we have very different perspectives on this. You are here for your own reasons, which is your business, and I am here for mine. I find human nature more interesting than philosophy, and what better place to observe human nature than somewhere where people are allowed to behave pretty much as they want to?

[Immanuel Can]

Well we have very different perspectives on this. You are here for your own reasons, which is your business, and I am here for mine.

I've acknowledged that.

I find human nature more interesting than philosophy, and what better place to observe human nature than somewhere where people are allowed to behave pretty much as they want to?

Ah. You're playing around with informal sociology on a philosophy forum, then. You can do that, but then you're becoming a kind of sideline to the main thing that's going on here, then. You could get the same information from stirring the pot on any forum...no need for this one, then.

But I think this forum does serve a useful purpose: it's supposed to, anyway. And that's to deal with philosophical questions.

[Harbal]

Well we have very different perspectives on this. You are here for your own reasons, which is your business, and I am here for mine.

I've acknowledged that.

I find human nature more interesting than philosophy, and what better place to observe human nature than somewhere where people are allowed to behave pretty much as they want to?

Ah. You're playing around with informal sociology on a philosophy forum, then. You can do that, but then you're becoming a kind of sideline to the main thing that's going on here, then. You could get the same information from stirring the pot on any forum...no need for this one, then.

If I were to present you with a list of the forums I've been banned from, you would more clearly see my point, and you would also realise that I very much do need this one.

But I think this forum does serve a useful purpose: it's supposed to, anyway. And that's to deal with philosophical questions.

Well there's nothing preventing folks from doing that, and they can always ignore the abuse.

[Harbal]

And where are we trying to get? This place is a rare gem, and that is because -unlike the ever increasing majority of internet forums- the moderators leave us mostly to our own devices. Surely we are adult enough, and tough enough, to deal with any beyond the pale behaviour amongst ourselves. Don't undervalue the freedom we have here.

Pompously, and ultra-pretentiously, with a dash of the irreverent, I commend you for this.

Well it just goes to show you don't have to be bossom buddies to agree about something.