Philosophy Now Forum

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 8:19 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 3:08 am If the metaphysics of reality is grounded in sacrifice, negation in other terms, by which a synthesis is achieved then it is most likely the case that Christianity is very close to the truth:

1. Jesus is the synthesis of God and man.

2. The sacrificial nature of reality corroborates with a self-sacrificial moral code.

3. Jesus was sinless and yet bore the sin of man...sin being the judgements and distinctions by which reality is warped where some aspect of reality is idolized by the act of judging. The sinlessness of God bearing all sin is a perfect synthesis.

4. The death of God shows God is not subject to pure power, for if God was subject to pure power then there would be a God beyond God. By God abandoning God God is no longer subject to God.

A thoughtful response John. Premissed on a BIG if, which you have expressed elsewhere. They don't get bigger. The dialectical work for that is yet to be impossibly done. As for any unwarranted, unjustified untrue belief.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 6:38 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 12:44 pm It really depends on how one comes into it, but Christianity, through reading of the Gospels, and certainly the OT, is an invitation to participate in a novel. The Bible is really for Occidentals the beginning of “imaginative literature”. It enables complex, interactive visualizations in which one is an active participant. This is perhaps the main reason I am careful not to condemn too forcefully those — our dear Immanuel is surely one — who live within the possibilities of Live Action Role Playing which, I think we can face this, is what a religious mythology offers to a man.

Curiously, Immanuel presents himself as a “knower” of what Christianity really is, and thus says “I am the only one who can have a valid notion of it and therefore explain it”. Yet time and again he never succeeds in explaining anything! If some essential value is there within the religious-mythic story, what that is or should be is never conveyed! What Immanuel does succeed at, and very well, is role playing a contemptuous character who he claims is actually God’s Child and heaven bound.

But he is astoundingly immune to seeing that this is what he achieves! The critique, such as it is, is not even registered.

Now there is something astounding.

Alexis Jacobi’s God is clearly a Great King above all gods. I soar down from time to time and scatter the sparrows and then ascend to my perch above The World.

One of these days I plan to begin my World Mission!

I got the following neutral an pared down version from ChatGPT:-

Christianity functions as an invitation to enter a narrative, especially through the Gospels and Old Testament, and for Western readers it often serves as a foundational form of imaginative participation. For that reason, I don’t strongly criticize those — like Immanuel — who treat it almost as a form of role play. The problem is that although Immanuel claims a unique and authoritative understanding of Christianity, he never actually communicates what this understanding is; instead, he performs the role of a contemptuous believer convinced of his own salvation, without recognizing that this is precisely what he’s doing. In contrast, I regard “Alexis Jacobi’s God” as a supreme figure and intervene periodically, with the intention of eventually initiating what I call my World Mission.

Imaginative participation is correct, because theatre has its historical roots in religious myths.
I have been asking IC an explicit question about his notion of transcendent and immanent deity, and also a question about sources of revelation of God besides The Bible. He provided clear and explicit answers .

I don't agree with his opinion, as he did not mention the theological Problem of Evil ,nor the works of Nature as one of Muhammad's signs of God at work in the world. However IC was explicit enough.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:12 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 8:19 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 3:08 am If the metaphysics of reality is grounded in sacrifice, negation in other terms, by which a synthesis is achieved then it is most likely the case that Christianity is very close to the truth:

1. Jesus is the synthesis of God and man.

2. The sacrificial nature of reality corroborates with a self-sacrificial moral code.

3. Jesus was sinless and yet bore the sin of man...sin being the judgements and distinctions by which reality is warped where some aspect of reality is idolized by the act of judging. The sinlessness of God bearing all sin is a perfect synthesis.

4. The death of God shows God is not subject to pure power, for if God was subject to pure power then there would be a God beyond God. By God abandoning God God is no longer subject to God.

A thoughtful response John. Premissed on a BIG if, which you have expressed elsewhere. They don't get bigger. The dialectical work for that is yet to be impossibly done. As for any unwarranted, unjustified untrue belief.

Given truth is grounded in negation by act of defining what it is not, it is not far of a stretch epistemologically speaking.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:12 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 8:19 am
A thoughtful response John. Premissed on a BIG if, which you have expressed elsewhere. They don't get bigger. The dialectical work for that is yet to be impossibly done. As for any unwarranted, unjustified untrue belief.

Given truth is grounded in negation by act of defining what it is not, it is not far of a stretch epistemologically speaking.

Apophatic theology is an infinitely far stretch ontologically speaking.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:35 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:12 am

Given truth is grounded in negation by act of defining what it is not, it is not far of a stretch epistemologically speaking.

Apophatic theology is an infinitely far stretch ontologically speaking.

Not really.

Negate infinitely.
Negate the infinite negation.
A positive occurs.
Be positive infinitely.
One is positive about negativity.
A cycle of both occurs.
This cycle holds both simultaneously.
A balance occurs where all things are given a time and place.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:35 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:32 am
Apophatic theology is an infinitely far stretch ontologically speaking.

Not really.

Negate infinitely.
Negate the infinite negation.
A positive occurs.
Be positive infinitely.
One is positive about negativity.
A cycle of both occurs.
This cycle holds both simultaneously.
A balance occurs where all things are given a time and place.

Yes really. God, Love, is not. All there is, in this context, is feelings expressed through words. About brute facts.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:35 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:12 am

Given truth is grounded in negation by act of defining what it is not, it is not far of a stretch epistemologically speaking.

Apophatic theology is an infinitely far stretch ontologically speaking.

Not really.

Negate infinitely.
Negate the infinite negation.
A positive occurs.
Be positive infinitely.
One is positive about negativity.
A cycle of both occurs.
This cycle holds both simultaneously.
A balance occurs where all things are given a time and place.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:16 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:35 am

Not really.

Negate infinitely.
Negate the infinite negation.
A positive occurs.
Be positive infinitely.
One is positive about negativity.
A cycle of both occurs.
This cycle holds both simultaneously.
A balance occurs where all things are given a time and place.

Yes really. God, Love, is not. All there is, in this context, is feelings expressed through words. About brute facts.

Feelings? No. The nature of recursive distinctions resulting in an isomorphic identity...yes. But I doubt you understand that sentence, and I really don't blame you.

So...

You negate God and Love, but something negated must first exist and the terms, such as the ones you emphasize, are so broad that effectively you could spend infinite life times negating how, what, when and where they occur.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:35 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:32 am
Apophatic theology is an infinitely far stretch ontologically speaking.

Not really.

Negate infinitely.
Negate the infinite negation.
A positive occurs.
Be positive infinitely.
One is positive about negativity.
A cycle of both occurs.
This cycle holds both simultaneously.
A balance occurs where all things are given a time and place.

If 'God'' is a term that does nothing other than stand as container of the whole transcendent and the whole immanent then God must be defined positively, as the transcendent plus the immanent are all there is. That is panentheism.

Absence of God as defined in the above paragraph is impossible, as we know from the fact we are talking here , so something is happening and we know that something is happening.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:16 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:59 am
Yes really. God, Love, is not. All there is, in this context, is feelings expressed through words. About brute facts.

Feelings? No. The nature of recursive distinctions resulting in an isomorphic identity...yes. But I doubt you understand that sentence, and I really don't blame you.

So...

You negate God and Love, but something negated must first exist and the terms, such as the ones you emphasize, are so broad that effectively you could spend infinite life times negating how, what, when and where they occur.

I don't negate those feelings. Yes by the way. You are plainly emotionally attached to what you say. I can't anyway. I just state the brute facts. The world is riven with unspeakable acts caused by hurt feelings. That's one.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:30 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:24 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:16 am

Feelings? No. The nature of recursive distinctions resulting in an isomorphic identity...yes. But I doubt you understand that sentence, and I really don't blame you.

So...

You negate God and Love, but something negated must first exist and the terms, such as the ones you emphasize, are so broad that effectively you could spend infinite life times negating how, what, when and where they occur.

I don't negate those feelings. Yes by the way. You are plainly emotionally attached to what you say. I can't anyway. I just state the brute facts. The world is riven with unspeakable acts caused by hurt feelings. That's one.

Not really...this is just logic...something that is not your strong suit and why you project emotions on to others and call it reasoning.

Try to be attached emotionally to a concept such as the "negation of negation" as founded in intuitive logic...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:27 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:35 am

Not really.

Negate infinitely.
Negate the infinite negation.
A positive occurs.
Be positive infinitely.
One is positive about negativity.
A cycle of both occurs.
This cycle holds both simultaneously.
A balance occurs where all things are given a time and place.

If 'God'' is a term that does nothing other than stand as container of the whole transcendent and the whole immanent then God must be defined positively, as the transcendent plus the immanent are all there is. That is panentheism.

Absence of God as defined in the above paragraph is impossible, as we know from the fact we are talking here , so something is happening and we know that something is happening.

If God is "nothing but the whole" and the whole has no contrast by which to be distinct then the whole is simultaneously nothing for the whole is indistinct.

God is not limited to thingness for if God was limited to thingness than God would not be God as God would be subject to a higher thing.

God is not limited to thingness metaphysically speaking hence the dilemma of a purely rational interpretation that seeks to avoid paradox.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:37 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:30 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:24 am
I don't negate those feelings. Yes by the way. You are plainly emotionally attached to what you say. I can't anyway. I just state the brute facts. The world is riven with unspeakable acts caused by hurt feelings. That's one.

Not really...this is just logic...something that is not your strong suit and why you project emotions on to others and call it reasoning.

Try to be attached emotionally to a concept such as the "negation of negation" as founded in intuitive logic...

You deceive yourself.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:41 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:27 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:23 am
If 'God'' is a term that does nothing other than stand as container of the whole transcendent and the whole immanent then God must be defined positively, as the transcendent plus the immanent are all there is. That is panentheism.

Absence of God as defined in the above paragraph is impossible, as we know from the fact we are talking here , so something is happening and we know that something is happening.

If God is "nothing but the whole" and the whole has no contrast by which to be distinct then the whole is simultaneously nothing for the whole is indistinct.

God is not limited to thingness for if God was limited to thingness than God would not be God as God would be subject to a higher thing.

God is not limited to thingness metaphysically speaking hence the dilemma of a purely rational interpretation that seeks to avoid paradox.

Something is limitation. Whereas Nothing is unlimited.

You’re doing well