Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:14 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:55 pm But surely you don't object to sex between people in a relationship, even if it is not a particularly long lasting relationship, do you?

This is not about what I object to or don't. It is best to see it as an examination of Dawson's (and others) view that the entirety of Christian doctrines will have a salutary effect.

My opinion is that it is not only unreasonable to expect people to abstain from sex in even casual relationships, but also unfeasible. Modern lifestyles are a world away from how they were back in the days of sexual repression. See how easy it is to express an opinion; can I not persuade you to at least try it?

But I have another point of contention with you Harbal! I was just on the phone with the Ticklecocks. Yes, there is a Ticklecock family who owns the Carnival. The report I received from Mr Ticklecock is that you barged your way in to the chamber of the young Miss Ticklecock and not only did you expose yourself to her but you made off with Miss Ticklecock's change purse! How do you justify the dishonor, Harbal? I must ask that you resolve to return it and to apologize! And you lied to the entire forum saying that you stayed home and *washed your hair*.

Obviously a case of mistaken identity, guv.

8.) that seems a modern trope and I am not sure if I agree that Catholic doctrines create imbalance. In fact I am uncertain what you mean.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:43 amWe've got a male deity creating the universe. You have him coming as a male incarnation. The Holy Spirit is neutral as far as I can tell. That's unbalanced. I do appreciate the role that Mary gets in the CC as a kind of emergence from that imbalance towards balance - though her greatness will always be coupled with accepting a lot of things (yes, kindness and mercy and in a sense almost an advocate through which one can perhaps find more mercy than via the male deities(deity), but it's still out of balance. There is no equivalent female portion of divinity to God/Jesus

I cannot say that I disagree with a certain *imbalance* in the Jewish conception of an entity without a female counterpart. It was talked about in other places on this forum.

What I will say to that is what I have been saying: We are dealing with pictures, and a picture is a device by which the real element, the truth, is expressed. Children require pictures and all things have to be presented to them so that the ideas can be entertained in the imagination. But what is to be realized is not the picture but something quintessential to it.

I see Christianity as a giant picture. In fact I see Catholicism as especially bound up in images that are entertained in the imagination. But my own view is that the *metaphysical truths* are what are ultimately relevant. If we do not capture those, we miss the point. True, my view is not the recommended on in strict, traditional Catholicism, but it is the way that I deal with the pictures.

And I believe that you are right in noticing that in practical Catholicism the harsh side of God and God's hard rules is significantly softened by the influence of the female element.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:44 pm My opinion is that it is not only unreasonable to expect people to abstain from sex in even casual relationships, but also unfeasible. Modern lifestyles are a world away from how they were back in the days of sexual repression. See how easy it is to express an opinion; can I not persuade you to at least try it?

I lived as a libertine of the first order for the largest part of my youthful career. As I said I am a product of California Radicalism and my parent's generation was just that generation that reolved to tear down all boundaries.

We are discussing the inner aspects of Christian and Catholic doctrines and we can only do that in a somewhat abstract way since no one of us (that I am aware) grew up in circumstances where these harsher ethics were practiced.

I agree with you that we are *a world away* from how things were at another time. My position is that I am uncertain if the results of all these changes are functioning to our advantage -- as a civilization. I do not think so. And so I have opted, for myself, to initiate changes. (And why I resolved to get married BTW -- and later than would have been *best* whatever best is).

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:36 pm 'Spiritual error' is the abandonment of god and spirituality in favor of atheism and materialism.

'Severe disorder' is the adoption of goals, attitudes and philosophies which are counterproductive and destructive to individuals and society.

I'm interested because I don't want a decline in individuals and society. Which requires identifying the problems and solutions.

We agree on these points. The issue is then how to *recover* what is needed or required. How to reverse the trends. Obviously we can only begin with our own self.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:31 pmPerhaps it need not go beyond the prohibition against extra-marital sex, but it does go beyond that. The Catholic Culture puts down the physical/sexual - not without Biblical contradictions and other practices that do not do this. Priests are celibate, the way the physical and the spiritual are contrasted and desires and bodies and well, the world in general are fallen and dangerous. It's not a coincidence that there have been so many judgment aimed at the physical. Yes, I understand the concerns about the excesses, but there is an implicit judgment of the physical/sexual/desire in general in Catholicism, especially if any of this is openly present or seems to be in women. There will be great resistance in society to having the old control and judgment based on this come back - in those parts of society where it is not still present that is.

Again the Christian ethic, and the Catholic ethic certainly, has as its focus the sacrament of marriage and a sexual life focused uniquely and exclusively within that relationship. And the strictness of the rule that the marriage cannot be dissolved. These are the facts. It seems very difficult and demanding (from where I sit).

The concept of why a priest is celibate is related to the sacrament of taking religious orders. If one does not understand the Sacrament and the idea it is based on, priestly celibacy will not be understood. But then too the monastic side of Catholic practice (there is little or nothing in Protestantism that is comparable) is incomprehensible to those of us who find it hard to think of an austere life as anything but a torture.

It's not a coincidence that there have been so many judgment aimed at the physical.

I cannot disagree. But then and because I am pretty familiar with Vedic doctrines about materialism and *the material entanglement* (the doctrine about the soul that gets trapped and mired in the *karma* that results from the entanglements and loses its way) I can understand *the physical* at another level. I tend to see the Catholic picture as a reduced and focused picture. And my view is that some aspects of Vedic philosophy explain better the underlying ideas.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:44 pm Obviously a case of mistaken identity, guv.

Please, Harbal, return the coin purse and the money you stole. And keep the wang-dang in your pants when around the young ladies.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 6:43 am Well, the way around it [doctrine of original sin] would be not to have it. I think it's a toxic message and is part of the CCs incarnation package.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:21 pmThat original sin is removed (not sure of the right word) at baptism. In this sense the Christian path is entirely new because the person is new at a fundamental spiritual level. That ‘cleansing away’ is also part of a holistic program.

Yes, one does get a kind of restart there. But given that humans are considered sinners and in need of Grace and we have this sacrifice by Jesus on our behalf and we have the threat of eternal torture that we will, in the end, only manage to avoid by the Grace of God....well if my wife, say, started talking to our children in that fashion, only or implicitly getting parallel messages across I would not consider it loving or accurate. And I would consider her to no longer be a loving person. I don't mean, if she became Catholic. I meant, the same kinds of messages were being sent from her, a parent to her children, that are supposedly coming from a loving deity.

How much of this is what you consider the core message or core metaphysical ideas, I don't know. But, again, these kinds of things will lead to resistance.

Dawson refers to Christianity generally as what can “renew human life”. That means an entire program. What that program is is not the topic of his book. But what Catholicism brings in the holistic doctrines of the social teachings. And I will say that their internal logic is sound.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:31 pm Without knowing what this entire program is I am left with what was before and the scriptures.

But this is a significant point but do keep in mind that I am speaking in relation to the Catholic theological concepts. Protestant Christianity is another animal.

Catholicism and Catholic philosophy is one with a long history. And it is replete and the details are worked out. If you say *I do not know what that program is* (the full picture) then how could you really make an assessment about it?

While not so much a focus on ethical doctrines this book [Liturgical prayer : its history & spirit] is one that I tremendously appreciate. It might be of interest to you and others if you are interested in understanding traditional Catholic doctrine through an understanding of its liturgy. (It also has to be grasped that as a result of Vatican ll that the traditional liturgy has been watered down and altered substantially, but that is another issue).

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 2:21 pmYes, one does get a kind of restart there. But given that humans are considered sinners and in need of Grace and we have this sacrifice by Jesus on our behalf and we have the threat of eternal torture that we will, in the end, only manage to avoid by the Grace of God....well if my wife, say, started talking to our children in that fashion, only or implicitly getting parallel messages across I would not consider it loving or accurate. And I would consider her to no longer be a loving person. I don't mean, if she became Catholic. I meant, the same kinds of messages were being sent from her, a parent to her children, that are supposedly coming from a loving deity.

I think you have made your position clear. I do agree that the Catholic/Christian doctrines have traditionally been expressed in ultra-black and white terms.

How much of this is what you consider the core message or core metaphysical ideas, I don't know. But, again, these kinds of things will lead to resistance.

Perhaps you understand the degree to which the Christian religion and doctrines are intimately bound up with the idea of resistance and rebellion? It is a fundamental tenet. The rebellion of the angels and their fall down to the earth level where, according to these worldpictures, they have unfettered capabilities to influence men. These are the *pictures* that we can no longer entertain because of our modern perspectives.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 2:01 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:36 pm 'Spiritual error' is the abandonment of god and spirituality in favor of atheism and materialism.

'Severe disorder' is the adoption of goals, attitudes and philosophies which are counterproductive and destructive to individuals and society.

I'm interested because I don't want a decline in individuals and society. Which requires identifying the problems and solutions.

We agree on these points. The issue is then how to *recover* what is needed or required. How to reverse the trends. Obviously we can only begin with our own self.

I don't think it's obvious that we have to start with ourselves. It's possible to work on and implement policies which are not applicable to ourselves.

Solutions have to found and tried. But returning to the past is not a viable solution. I don't think bringing back Catholicism or Christianity in the original form is a good solution. One can learn from past mistakes and try to incorporate the things that worked, into a new structure.

if only "we" (I) could force everyone to behave like "we" (I) want them to behave...

"we" (I) would have utopia...

(works for/against christians or communists (any religion or political "ism"), but freewill screws everything up...)

-Imp

There are lots of issues that don't apply to me.

I don't have a womb.

I'm too old to be drafted into the army.

I don't use narcotics.

I don't smoke.

Policies need to be implemented about these issues. Abortion, warfare, drug and substance abuse, ...

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:46 pm I don't think it's obvious that we have to start with ourselves. It's possible to work on and implement policies which are not applicable to ourselves.

You will have to explain why. In my view -- it seems obvious -- the only place to start is within one's own self.

Solutions have to found and tried. But returning to the past is not a viable solution. I don't think bringing back Catholicism or Christianity in the original form is a good solution. One can learn from past mistakes and try to incorporate the things that worked, into a new structure.

There is no way to *return to the past*. But there definitely is a way, and I think a need, to clarify the original theology. As is obvious I am interested in traditional (pre-Vatican ll) theological foundations. At least from a traditionalist's perspective these *core doctrines*, because they are just that, must be recovered. For my own part I am seeing that this position makes sense.

I have no idea what sort of religiousness you are involved in, so I cannot offer any comment.

You will have to explain why. In my view -- it seems obvious -- the only place to start is within one's own self.

Examples above.

But there definitely is a way, and I think a need, to clarify the original theology. As is obvious I am interested in traditional (pre-Vatican ll) theological foundations.

The original theology wasn't Catholic.

Catholicism is already a bastardization of Jesus' message.

(So is Protestantism.)

"There is no original text" - Nietzsche

-Imp