Philosophy Now Forum

I can't buy into the notion that Jesus was the creator of the universe. If I go to "Hell" because I don't think Jesus was the creator of the universe or else because I'm not one of the "chosen" people then so be it.

The Father created the universe, not Jesus.

I've said both, actually. But I've pointed out that good works, no matter how impressive or abundant they may be, do not produce salvation, and faith does.

A person may do a ton of good works, but do every one of them for selfish reasons, such as to appear philanthropic, to increase his personal influence, or even to show off his surplus wealth. And such a person may not have one iota of faith in God.

In fact, the Bible talks specifically about such people. As Jesus said,

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

There you go. Jesus says it : Doing the will of the Father gives entry to the kingdom of heaven.

May I ask, then, what are you being "motivated and engaged" with? Is it with God personally, or just with the sort of external religious performance in the rituals, or as suggested above?

Perhaps you are too fixated on the tools.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:37 pm It's like arguing over the pronunciation of 'tomato'.

As for Catholic rituals not being in the Bible ... I see them as a useful way to stay motivated and engaged.

It's like when you get a gym membership. You believe that exercise is good for you but often you don't feel like going.

You go because you scheduled a session with a workout partner, you expect to see the regulars there at a particular time and day, you have set goals. That sort of thing. It keeps you going.

Though I know that you and others hate to be *corrected* and regard it as an affront when someone, or I in this case, point out your ignorance, I do not do so through a mean-spiritedness. In my view it is important to really understand things, and then an individual can make choices about what he feels has value and how he will choose to live.

It is not like arguing over the pronunciation of 'tomato'. The Catholicism that developed in Europe offered to the citizen an entire framework through which life was organized and lived. Every day of the calendar had a saint, there were Holy Days and services to be involved with for about 1/4 of the calendar year. The entire year was a circle of events that commemorated the Advent of Jesus Christ and in each month and season the Gospel story was played out, and culminated in Easter season with a great celebration. People literally lived within their religion in a sort of existential-theological art-form.

It is very true that the European Catholic religion is a progressive creation, but that buttresses my point that it was a theological art-form, and in fact more than that since it proposed to Man that there was an intelligible order to existence, a progression through the seasons of life, an application of a sense of that metaphysical order through the notion of the 7 sacraments (baptism, communion, confession, eucharist, matrimony, taking holy orders, and final unction when one took leave of life).

So, it is not useful or very helpful to say that everything that was created by the men who over many generations formed the liturgical practices that describe Catholicism *is not found in the Bible*. If one is determined to undermine or invalidate what these men did and what as created over so many centuries. What is the sense of that? It is not a very intelligent way to examine European history and it won't help if you tried to apply that simplistic level of analysis to the study of any religion in any part of the world. A religious modality is by definition *progressive* and the original revelation is something that is worked with over time.

However, and in fact, a great deal that is *in the Bible* (speaking now of the New Testament Gospels) became the inspiration for these evolutions and progressions which then took on a life of their own. Naturally, Immanuel Can will melt down over this () but the Catholic veneration of Mary, and the notion of her being the mother of the incarnation of God and also humankind's mother, was extracted from John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

It is, naturally, a question about how it is read, who reads it, and what *higher meaning* is interpreted to be expressed through the Biblical passage. Hermeneutics and the interpretation of scriptural texts is an entire topic all its own.

Protestantism arose for a wide range of reasons, some theological certainly, but it is simply not possible to reduce the social and cultural movement that was set in motion to one sentence or paragraph. And though it can be said that *a great deal was gained* (such as the creation of a modern economy and a technological revolution) at the same time -- and this is always true in life -- a great deal was lost.

But the most important thing, and the thing of greatest relevance in this conversation, is what has now occurred: the loss or the destruction of the metaphysical platform that was once sincerely believed in. That is, a cosmos understood to be God's creation and man's life and destiny as existing, as it were, within an intelligible structure. That *world* no longer exists. It has fractured away. And man stands in the ruins.

And you, Phyllo, stand in those ruins because you do not have a genuine *belief*. You seem to play on both sides of a fence though. But if I had to reveal my intuitional sense about you I would say you are certainly a post-Christian and another postmodern casualty -- as so many of us are.

True indeed that Immanuel Can (and when I refer to him I refer to a mode of thought and not to him as an individual) through the revision of the Gospel texts has attempted to cobbled together through a salvage-effort the metaphysical structure that was once genuinely believed in, I say that in fact what he does is a farce and a rehearsal. Its an enactment, a sort of faith-theatre. Yes, yes I know you wish to see this as ad hominem attack and if that serves you keep it up.

The actual facts, when seen from above, is as I say: the ground under the structure on which faith was constructed has shifted too much. In a way you could say that it is no longer possible to build on that ground. You can try and maybe it will work for a time, but it will not repair the damage that has been done to the loss of faith in the core metaphysics and the picture through which it was expressed.

There is no person (that I am aware of) on this forum that can join Immanuel Can in his effort to bandaid together a collapsed structure. Perhaps one of the reasons the thread has remained active is because here we delve into the existential territory of that deep sort of loss that is our lot. And many of the denizens who are drawn to these flames are examples of the distortion that manifests in the individual and the personality when the horizen is erased and when the ground falls away.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:44 pm

I can't buy into the notion that Jesus was the creator of the universe. If I go to "Hell" because I don't think Jesus was the creator of the universe or else because I'm not one of the "chosen" people then so be it.

The Father created the universe, not Jesus.

Jesus is supposedly God incarnate. If that's true then Jesus was the creator in the flesh form.

Exalted Master Alexis Jacobi Intones: But the most important thing, and the thing of greatest relevance in this conversation, is what has now occurred: the loss or the destruction of the metaphysical platform that was once sincerely believed in. That is, a cosmos understood to be God's creation and man's life and destiny as existing, as it were, within an intelligible structure. That *world* no longer exists. It has fractured away. And man stands in the ruins.

To understand what *standing in the ruins* refers to I suggest simply taking a look around!

Consider -- for example -- the devastated position that Gary is constantly sharing here. Or examine the 'fragmented & fractured* histrionics of our charming buffoon Iambiguous. Hello Dubious you Lopsided Grumpy Grandpa! On this forum there are nothing but chemically pure examples of people who demonstrate the loss of the metaphysical ground to which I refer. In that condition the individual begins to disintegrate, because the Individual is a creation, much like one the European cathedrals is a creation. When the individual loses metaphysical ground, that individual begins to disintegrate, and in that disintegration there is a great flaring up of the lights of the processes of death. A corpse in fact comes alive from within as the putrefaction-processes begin.

I come as a Delinquent Saint! Here ye! Here ye! I have minor medicines and, dammit, better than those in Pablo's little vials, and I am doling them out because I need cash! Please consider signing up for the 14 Week *Complete Reconstruction* Email Course. Yes, we will study Marlo Thomas in depth. Yes we will review Linklater's twisted premonitory films. Yes I promise more pussy than even Frank Sinatra. But you must sign up!

Do it today!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:42 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:25 pm Really, imagine Jesus Christ Himself returning and spending all of His time addressing the sort of things that AJ considers to be of vital importance here.

Really, He’s better off up in those Theological Clouds being hauled up by those fabled skyhooks from one fine celestial region to others even more fine . . .

Even he doesn't know if he actually means this. Well, if it actually means anything at all.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:14 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:44 pm

I can't buy into the notion that Jesus was the creator of the universe. If I go to "Hell" because I don't think Jesus was the creator of the universe or else because I'm not one of the "chosen" people then so be it.

The Father created the universe, not Jesus.

Jesus is supposedly God incarnate. If that's true then Jesus was the creator in the flesh form.

I think that is a misunderstanding of the Trinity.

(But who understands the Trinity anyways. )

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:16 pm

Exalted Master Alexis Jacobi Intones: But the most important thing, and the thing of greatest relevance in this conversation, is what has now occurred: the loss or the destruction of the metaphysical platform that was once sincerely believed in. That is, a cosmos understood to be God's creation and man's life and destiny as existing, as it were, within an intelligible structure. That *world* no longer exists. It has fractured away. And man stands in the ruins.

To understand what *standing in the ruins* refers to I suggest simply taking a look around!

Consider -- for example -- the devastated position that Gary is constantly sharing here. Or examine the 'fragmented & fractured* histrionics of our charming buffoon Iambiguous. Hello Dubious you Lopsided Grumpy Grandpa! On this forum there are nothing but chemically pure examples of people who demonstrate the loss of the metaphysical ground to which I refer. In that condition the individual begins to disintegrate, because the Individual is a creation, much like one the European cathedrals is a creation. When the individual loses metaphysical ground, that individual begins to disintegrate, and in that disintegration there is a great flaring up of the lights of the processes of death. A corpse in fact comes alive from within as the putrefaction-processes begin.

I come as a Delinquent Saint! Here ye! Here ye! I have minor medicines and, dammit, better than those in Pablo's little vials, and I am doling them out because I need cash! Please consider signing up for the 14 Week *Complete Reconstruction* Email Course. Yes, we will study Marlo Thomas in depth. Yes we will review Linklater's twisted premonitory films. Yes I promise more pussy than even Frank Sinatra. But you must sign up!

Do it today!

Who's "devastated", "disintegrated" or "putrefied"? I've never been happier in my life nor felt more harmonious since I've become vocally opposed to the idea of a God who condemns for the mere lack of worship of those struggling in the world 'he' allegedly created. But since you're in the business of selling illusions (perhaps 'imaginary works of art composed of ether' might be a better description) then, by all means. You and I are not more nor less likely to end any differently from each other. You can get rich peddling superstition designed to manipulate, I'll be just as happy to reject it. If others want to pay top dollar for fantasies and illusions, then it's not like I didn't post a content warning label to diffuse the pending detonation of your followers. I deal in living honestly.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 10:00 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:14 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:44 pm
The Father created the universe, not Jesus.

Jesus is supposedly God incarnate. If that's true then Jesus was the creator in the flesh form.

I think that is a misunderstanding of the Trinity.

(But who understands the Trinity anyways. )

Yes, I know, the conception of the "trinity" that makes no rational sense because if it did it still wouldn't make rational sense. I'm sure that if something doesn't make sense then that must be a clear indication that it isn't nonsense.

Though I know that you and others hate to be *corrected* and regard it as an affront when someone, or I in this case, point out your ignorance, I do not do so through a mean-spiritedness. In my view it is important to really understand things, and then an individual can make choices about what he feels has value and how he will choose to live.

Okay, correct me.

It is not like arguing over the pronunciation of 'tomato'. The Catholicism that developed in Europe offered to the citizen an entire framework through which life was organized and lived. Every day of the calendar had a saint, there were Holy Days and services to be involved with for about 1/4 of the calendar year. The entire year was a circle of events that commemorated the Advent of Jesus Christ and in each month and season the Gospel story was played out, and culminated in Easter season with a great celebration. People literally lived within their religion in a sort of existential-theological art-form.

I'm referring to pronunciation specifically with respect to faith and works. Both Protestants and Catholics seem to agree that a Christian has faith and does good works. Yet this is also a big source of contention.

Your description appears to show Catholics caught up in the pageantry, ritual and performance. And having lost sight of the goal ... God via Jesus.

You seem to be supporting IC's case that Catholicism isn't even Christianity any more.

I'm looking at it through a modern lens. I'm talking about a time frame after about 1900 and Western Europe and North America. I suspect that your range is much larger.

Has "theological art-form" actually replaced God?

However, and in fact, a great deal that is *in the Bible* (speaking now of the New Testament Gospels) became the inspiration for these evolutions and progressions which then took on a life of their own. Naturally, Immanuel Can will melt down over this () but the Catholic veneration of Mary, and the notion of her being the mother of the incarnation of God and also humankind's mother, was extracted from John 19:26-27

It's almost like one find a passage in the bible to support any idea.

I think the veneration of Mary is another attempt to bridge the gap between person and God. Jesus was supposed to be that bridge but over time, he has become too remote. The saints serve the same purpose. A toolbox.

Does it have to be in the bible? I don't think so.

And you, Phyllo, stand in those ruins because you do not have a genuine *belief*. You seem to play on both sides of a fence though. But if I had to reveal my intuitional sense about you I would say you are certainly a post-Christian and another postmodern casualty -- as so many of us are.

Believe what exactly?

I believe some things and not others.

I certainly don't qualify as a Christian.

I wouldn't call myself a casualty.

Perhaps one of the reasons the thread has remained active is because here we delve into the existential territory of that deep sort of loss that is our lot.

I have no idea why this thread exists or why it's over a thousand pages long.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 10:40 pmYour description appears to show Catholics caught up in the pageantry, ritual and performance. And having lost sight of the goal ... God via Jesus.

You seem to be supporting IC's case that Catholicism isn't even Christianity any more.

Yeah, he does. This is perplexin' in light of this conversation...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:58 pmMy point is that Christianity is completely psychological. That is, it deals with and is concerned with the soul (psyche) and it seeks conversion of a soul enmeshed in materialism and power-issues while it attacks those who uphold those power structures and, obviously, vilifies them as Agents of Satan.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 3:15 pmAJ: "My point is that Christianity is completely psychological."

Yes, but is it 'real'?

Christianity defines man, man's relationship to other men, and man's relationship to God.

It asks, and answers: what is man? How should he live?

Yes, this is a 'psychological' exercise, but is it 'real'?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 3:30 pmI consider metaphysics real. I view the containers of metaphysical intimation as being, well, containers. But they are not the important thing.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:18 pm AJ: "I consider metaphysics real."

Yes, I know, and I agree with you.

"I view the containers of metaphysical intimation as being, well, containers. But they are not the important thing."

No, not in themselves, they're not. But, obviously, 'containers' or 'narratives' or 'stories' aren't created equal.

Let's, in context, take two: Christianity and Catholicism.

Christianity (and I mean here the raw, minimal thing, a rough clay jar [or even just cupped hands]) clearly offers no 'ornateness', no 'aesthetics'. The water inside is the treasure.

Catholicism, as container, is filigreed, fine, ornate, quite beautiful in its design. So much so a body can get lost in appreciatin' the container and never get to the water.

In the first: the container serves its purpose. It holds water and makes it readily available to whoever wants it [and in the case of cupped hands one becomes beholden to (no, not beholden to, 'involved with' is better] the water bearer.

In the second: the container has become a purpose unto itself. A person hesitates to break its seal. The water might never get got to.

You see what I'm gettin' to, yeah?

'Containers' or 'narratives' or 'stories' can cleanly convey or not. They can help or hinder.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:12 pmYes, I do see what you are referring to and it is a good point.

So what I have noticed is that Protestant and Catholic theologians and apologists -- and here I refer to those of the higher orders -- have seemed to me to get to the core of what is important. My personal favorites, among the Protestants (Anglicans) are people like Richard Livingstone and WR Inge. And I could name others on the Catholic side.

At the higher levels, as I have witnessed it, mature people put aside the more *petty* differences and try to establish ground where they can work together.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:31 pm AJ: "So what I have noticed is that Protestant and Catholic theologians and apologists -- and here I refer to those of the higher orders -- have seemed to me to get to the core of what is important. My personal favorites, among the Protestants (Anglicans) are people like Richard Livingstone and WR Inge. And I could name others on the Catholic side."

If we could can we talk a bit about these core elements? That is: can we set aside the containers and talk about the water (and, mebbe, the water bearer)?

As I say: 'Christianity defines man, man's relationship to other men, and man's relationship to God. It asks, and answers: what is man? How should he live?'

This container supposedly holds the answers, the water. If you agree, then what, as you reckon it, are those answers?

What is man? How should he live? What is his relationship to other men? What is his relationship to God?

Rather than gettin' down to those core elements, AJ -- after dickin' around with various forum-denizens & - disasters -- sez...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:02 pmThe Catholicism that developed in Europe offered to the citizen an entire framework through which life was organized and lived. Every day of the calendar had a saint, there were Holy Days and services to be involved with for about 1/4 of the calendar year. The entire year was a circle of events that commemorated the Advent of Jesus Christ and in each month and season the Gospel story was played out, and culminated in Easter season with a great celebration. People literally lived within their religion in a sort of existential-theological art-form.

It is very true that the European Catholic religion is a progressive creation, but that buttresses my point that it was a theological art-form, and in fact more than that since it proposed to Man that there was an intelligible order to existence, a progression through the seasons of life, an application of a sense of that metaphysical order through the notion of the 7 sacraments (baptism, communion, confession, eucharist, matrimony, taking holy orders, and final unction when one took leave of life).

So, it is not useful or very helpful to say that everything that was created by the men who over many generations formed the liturgical practices that describe Catholicism *is not found in the Bible*. If one is determined to undermine or invalidate what these men did and what as created over so many centuries. What is the sense of that? It is not a very intelligent way to examine European history and it won't help if you tried to apply that simplistic level of analysis to the study of any religion in any part of the world. A religious modality is by definition *progressive* and the original revelation is something that is worked with over time.

..which, seems to me, to be an elevation of 'container' (and the 'container' built to enshrine that first 'container').

AJ's concern, it seems to me, is Catholic Culture (a kind of 'container'), not with the rough, clay jar that is Christianity, or the 'water' in the jar, or the one who bears the water.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:16 pm
Consider -- for example -- the devastated position that Gary is constantly sharing here. Or examine the 'fragmented & fractured* histrionics of our charming buffoon Iambiguous. Hello Dubious you Lopsided Grumpy Grandpa! On this forum there are nothing but chemically pure examples of people who demonstrate the loss of the metaphysical ground to which I refer. In that condition the individual begins to disintegrate, because the Individual is a creation, much like one the European cathedrals is a creation. When the individual loses metaphysical ground, that individual begins to disintegrate, and in that disintegration there is a great flaring up of the lights of the processes of death. A corpse in fact comes alive from within as the putrefaction-processes begin.

Oh my! The lamentations of Jeremiah sung once again simply because nothing lasts forever. You're looking for a static world cemented by a single metaphysical system not unlike any extreme fundamentalist's total acceptance of the bible as the inviolable word of god. Putrefaction actually starts to encroach when a system of whatever kind exists beyond its 'best before date'. No metaphysic is invulnerable to time, especially so when its truths are equally vulnerable. What you espouse and consistently repeat is a hackneyed story most have heard many times with many variations.

Nice one Dubes! But well off the mark.

Phyllo:You seem to be supporting IC's case that Catholicism isn't even Christianity any more.

Henry:Yeah, he does. This is perplexin' in light of this conversation...

Nothing is black and white. No analysis can be expressed without careful nuance.

I am not opposed to considering and integrating aspects of ICs critique. The Protestants had some good points after all.

It is ridiculously stupid to take positions that keep one from seeing circumspectly.

I have used the term Christianesque. And I do not take that term to be (necessarily) negative.

Northern Europe modified some Christian doctrine and allowed the creation of civilization and a religious doctrine far more life-affirming.

The doctrinaire go into Calvinistic conniptions but that’s not my problem.

I had 7 new sign-ups today ($10,493.00) and 5-6 drippingly sensuous PMs from girl fans world-wide. I told you assholes: there’s more pussy than even Sinatra had in the life-renovation/deep psychic healing business.