The Philosophy Now Forum

AJ wrote:Christ liberates man from “the here-below” (the fallen world) for life in a world beyond, constructed one might say of imperishable, divine substance.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 12:44 pm How does this world become "the locale of the eternal kingdom"? Are you referring to Christ's alleged return to Earth whereby he raises the dead?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 1:17 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 12:44 pm How does this world become "the locale of the eternal kingdom"? Are you referring to Christ's alleged return to Earth whereby he raises the dead?

At this point, I see this as obvious, all eschatological question & concerns should be directed to me since, also obviously, Alexis Jacobi is exactly that “hyper-intelligent chimp” and IC (M. Yam ) that wide-eyed lemur clinging to a trig munching a tender leaf …

I have descended here with actionable explanations! No mincing of words, no evasiveness, no rhetorical trickery. Alexis Jacobi is like unto living explanatory water bright with living currents!

You see, Gary, the descent as it were of God into the Earth, and his death and his resurrection, are ‘emblems’ or ‘signs’ of the eventual cure of and transformation of the Earth.

This is why, Gary, I have always noted that your pessimism view if “life as it is” is the incomplete picture of a quasi-Christian. You have become totally disenchanted with ‘the world’ in all its corruption and horror, but cannot bring yourself to, as it were, cross over a River Styx of insurmountable doubt borne of faithlessness that the Supreme Author has a whole new set of possibilities in mind.

‘The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!’

But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 1:47 pm Therefore — and here I do wish to insist on the linkage between these ideas, so foundational to the Occident — we have some means at our disposal to view and to understand the quite frankly psychotic groanings of men in our world today. The foundations are shaking.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 1:18 am

AJ wrote:In your case you do not believe or sense there is any such divinity. So any description of “God’s rights” cannot make any sense. Your interaction with the question ends there, no?

phyllo wrote:I'm quite capable of dealing with hypothetical situations.

In this hypothetical God has established that men will serve a range of principles defined as moral. Men either realize (intuit) that obligation, or they rebel against it.

Your move …

The Queen is not merely Hamlet's mother; she is his whole ancestral line going back to Eve herself; and inasmuch as she is Eve, she represents, in general, the fallen human soul, especially in its passive aspect. In other words, she represents that passivity which in man's primordial state was turned towards Heaven and which after it lost contact with the Spirit has come more or less under the sway of the devil or, in the words of the play, having sated itself in a celestial bed has come to prey on garbage. Like the father and son in Henry IV, mother and son here can each be taken separately as representing 'Everyman', but above all they are to be taken together as constituting fallen human soul, Hamlet himself being the personification of its active aspect — its conscience and its intelligence. The attitude of the son towards his mother, which many people consider to be something of an enigma and which has prompted more than one grotesque explanation, is amply explained if we consider that allegorically mother and son are one person, different faculties of one and thesame soul.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 2:03 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 1:18 am

AJ wrote:In your case you do not believe or sense there is any such divinity. So any description of “God’s rights” cannot make any sense. Your interaction with the question ends there, no?

phyllo wrote:I'm quite capable of dealing with hypothetical situations.

In this hypothetical God has established that men will serve a range of principles defined as moral. Men either realize (intuit) that obligation, or they rebel against it.

Your move …

First of all, men and women have to establish that these "principles" actually come from God. Good luck with that, since all we have is people talking and writing about what God wants. If God is talking to you, there is an excellent possibility that you are talking to yourself. A God which makes a direct address to the general population would be something.

Next, men and women would have to decide if they want to go along with these "principles". It's not "realizing that obligation" or "rebelling". It's judging whether these principles are good or bad. Judging whether this God is good or bad.

One decides to serve, to follow, to obey or not.

I don't doubt that some will just turn off their minds and blindly do whatever their God says to do.

The rest, hopefully the vast majority , will reason, judge, evaluate, think and apply standards to God and God's Principles.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2026 2:03 pm The rest, hopefully the vast majority, will reason, judge, evaluate, think and apply standards to God and God's Principles.

Morality means, quite precisely, actions and ethics which previsualize the World to Come and, as I have often said, morality of a Christian type is “contradictory” to the present ways of Nature, and Nature is a corrupted and terrible state — a state where slavery predominates.