Philosophy Now Forum

[Soundtrack…] [Lyrics].

Immanuel Can wrote:It also describes Naturalist Atheism, however. Atheism holds (unless I am mistaken, so feel free to correct me; after all, it's not my belief system) that we began accidentally, as a product of a hydrogen explosion known as the Big Bang. We will all ultimately end in oblivion, with our atoms scattered in an absolutely equal distribution throughout the cosmos. And the ethics in the middle are...

I'm not sure.

Can anyone help me with that?

Yes! I can. Here! I've got my hand raised! Yooo-hooo!

This is really the most interesting question and one that is not addressed so often. Generally, and with some good reasoning, the deflation of religion is seen as opening up to a superstition-free era and toward the 'liberation of the mind of man'. I guess this is standard Age of Enlightenment fare.

But what actually seems to happen (is happening) is something quite different. Without a 'higher standard' (variously defined, naturally, and even contended) one has no alternative but to fall back into materialism. And that is where a 'production and supply system' (which oversees production not only of stuff but also ideas and their distribution) takes over. Ideas become (literally---a word I use sometimes precisely, sometimes loosely) merely the stuff by which biological units are programmed. It also seems that, like economies, they move toward standardization. The Lords of the world are 1) concentrations of capital who have the resources to communicate their specific conglomerations of Ideas and 2) governmental systems which, ever more, are functionaries in the supply-chain that is our shared reality. The individual is said to have 'rights' but there is no longer an extramundane guarantor (if you will) of those rights, and additionally since the underlying metaphysic that offers such a 'right' to a specific entity is no longer seen as existing really, what is offered to a man or to men is a 'legal guarantee': dime-thin and worth as much.

Ethics diverges in substantial senses from the 'ethics' that have made our world (and our minds) what it is, and become an ethics of production and supply. The center of valuation shifts from the sacredness of persons to (excuse me for repeating this) to the sacredness of the systems of production and supply which 'feed' man. One has to begin to define oneself and justify oneself in relation to the Production and Distribution System which---you knew I was going to say this, eh?---becomes evermore a sort of Moloch. Or, better put, it contains all the possibilities of a Moloch.

And once one no longer has the ability---indeed the 'right'---to defend oneself in relation to Eternal Constants (oneself as the 'ultimate metaphyscial property holding'), one will only be able to defend oneself, as it were, in human and capricious 'courts of law'; courts which serve interests quite distinct from that of 'persons' with full metaphysical rights.

The body of man then becomes just another commodity, really, and perhaps a sort of 'mine' out of which material of sorts can be extracted. Certain entities---as a corporation is an entity and an anonymous person with a programmed will, with intentionality---shall be seen as having the 'right' (legally protected!) to enter into that private metaphysical space and to take from you, or implant 'things' in you, or convince you toward this and that and whatever. Actually even right now this is a normative. The rational and planned assault on, say, your children's sovereignty by corporations selling both ideas, pleasure devices, attitudes toward living, and which relate to persons as barriers to be stepped over. You are not free to defend yourself, in truth. In this sense the individual must surrender himself to something else, something that is not his own self.

Ideas, and the conception of a Higher Metaphysic, are a means of protection of the self and of the individual.

But the basic activity---summed up imprecisely as 'analysis' [as in 'analytical nerds'] is a universal and---in my view---the most important activity of man.

Are you talking about theology here, or just thinking in general? How about breathing, that's kinda important, don't you think?

And its masculine nature I would emphasize.

Well of course. While men start their very important religions, political parties and wars etc, women only raise the children, prepare the food, tend to the sick and aged, fill the world with joyous beauty, and other such silly nonsense.

If for you this is the 'activity of a nerd' (which is to say a defect really) then I am here to tell you that you are denigrating the single more important and most relevant activity and possibility of man. Everything that can be conceived of as 'valuable' is found in that activity and in what results from it.

We are NERD GODS, and don't you forget it!!!!!!!

That is quite likely where a fundamental and unbridgeable difference is to be found between our viewpoints.

Your viewpoint is to say as many words for as long as possible, and I'm pissed at you for beating me at my own game.

A 'religious experience', without a means to translate it into concepts that can be used and which can take shape in this world and mould this world, toward good or toward evil, has very little value indeed.

The religious experience does not require yours, mine, or anybody else's interpretation, and it wouldn't be worth pursuing if it did.

There are indeed experiences that might lead a man to all sorts of choices, but the experience itself does not do that.

Eating does not lead a man to all sorts of choices, nor does sleeping, or breathing, or sex. You know, real world stuff. Religious experience feeds the psyche the same way a bowl of soup feeds the stomach. It doesn't require somebody like you or me to then come along and write a book about it.

To have validity, for me, this experience has to translate into a concrete modus. I accept that it may not be so, for you.

Yes, we agree here. You are a philosopher, and so you require philosophy to be part of the project. I have no argument with this.

Your hypothetical is really a form of fallacious argumentation in operation.

No, it's not at all. You are typing and reading too fast. It's a very simple hypothetical question that is entirely relevant to the conversation, and philosophy forums in general. Why are you so urgent to repeatedly dodge it?

I'm not proposing there is a right or wrong answer, I am asking readers only to privately provide themselves with a clear and honest answer.

If it turned out that basketball was the best way to pursue the religious inquiry (however one defines that) what would we do, play basketball, or continue with philosophy?

If we answer philosophy, then that is our real goal, and not the religious inquiry. In that case, given that the religious inquiry is not our real goal, we should not be surprised if we don't advance our religious inquiry. That's all I'm saying.

I suggest that you have a vague and perhaps imperfectly intuited sense of it, that it is anti-conceptual and (likely) rather feminine, not as a term of contempt but as an accurate description.

Do you require a precise definition of the food on your plate before you eat it, or do you find the eating itself to be fulfilling and satisfying enough?

How about sex? Do you require a precise definition of your partner and the acts you share, or is the experience itself enough?

When you're tired at the end of the day, do you research sleep states online, or is it enough to lay down, close your eyes, and drift off?

Why can't the religious experience be valued for itself, for the psychic nutrition it brings us, without the need for a big long winded analytical conceptual explanation of the experience??? You'd starve to death if you tried that with eating!!!

The answer to this question reveals what the reader's real goal is.

More properly 'the answer' to your rhetorical set-up!

You're resisting the hypothetical because you see the obvious truth in it, so we're on to "sweep it off the table" mode.

What this shows me is how deeply you are mystified and how your mystification has trapped you.

Again Gustav, are you aware that there are many millions of non-philosophical type people who invest their entire lives in the experience of religion?

To describe god as 'love' and to the revelation of god as a revelation of 'love' is part of the problem of a badly conceived theology.

It's not a theology, it's a real world experience.

In the sense that you seem to define it (nebulously and femininely) I would choose to have no part of this 'love'. This 'love' becomes part of a kind of con-game. It is an easy route to a (false) universalism. Myself, I would establish order, definition, discipline and duty before this nebulous 'love'.

So, in your way of seeing this, buying a homeless man a sandwich is a con-game, taking a lonely old lady out to dinner is an easy route to a false universalism.

Felasco wrote:So, in your way of seeing this, buying a homeless man a sandwich is a con-game...

Hmmm. Perhaps it would be that tricking oneself that giving a homeless man a sandwich can be portrayed as an act of [true] love is what I am calling a 'con-game'…

Such a man [homeless, hungry], in the context of larger discussions, doesn't interest me, and a sandwich doesn't solve his problem anyway. One moves through the world and one does what one can though. But, riffing off your example, it is a far more relevant activity to show a man how he can rise out of poverty, or can understand the chain of events that led him to it, which is also to say to every and to all consequences in which we live as a result of our choices and decisions! That is, and I am not just saying this, I believe it, a 'holy task'. And along the same lines and in the same vein a correctly orienting theology is a recipe (in the sense of a prescription) that in the hands of a good recipient can help that recipient to construct a life where 'life is enjoyed in greater measure'. This is not a trifling matter. Missing the mark of life is a tragedy. As I have said a few times the world I live in is substantially different from the one (some here) seem to live in. I see on a daily basis people who in their living are missing the mark. Therefor, the cup does not get to the lips, the nourishment doesn't get into them. It is a form of 'spiritual death' or a 'slow death' or a 'semi-life'. In my case I have spent some years examining these issues and my religion and my philosophy speak toward the same goal:

• "What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people."

If you are to define an activity, a teaching if you will, that can change lives you might (in your heart of hearts) orient yourself from a place of 'love', but I assure you that the teaching itself is much more about severity and clarifying truth, and these are in essence ideas. They are ideas that can be communicated and have to be communicated.

I put out that quote, from John, only to place the emphasis on what is at stake.
________________________________

All this talk of the Emerald Isle reminded me of this song, and this.

Renounce your religion, renounce everything, and listen to this. This will get you back on track.

uwot wrote:I'll say: 'See ya later, noster pater. The devil has all the best tunes anyway.'

This one goes out to you, uwot. Now, if you insist on linking-up with the Devil himself, try this. Just be warned, it really does lead to this.

[u]aiddon[/u] in the thread 'Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?' wrote:I think you may have things somewhat in reverse. Have you considered for one moment that morality and ethics as espoused by religion is based on the fundamental nature of humanity? Being a good Christian, for example, is desirable because it is good, not because it is Christian. The concept of good and bad did not come into existence because people read the Bible - goodness is a property of humanity. You are taking the Dosteoevsky line, that everything is permissible without God - well, you must have very little faith in humanity. Your contention that the notion of a "good atheist" is irrational, but I argue, no it isn't. Thank you for conceding that there are some nice atheists out there, but it is a little condescending to suggest that we somehow borrow from traditions to construct our moral framework. I absolutely and strongly refute this. Again, you use the example of the atheist regime of Stalin (two mutually exclusive concepts, by the way - atheist and regime...Stalin regarded any institution as a threat and therefore religion was supressed - he did train as a priest, you know). Now, I presume you're aware that not everyone in communist Russia was a maniac at the time, for example the general population. Second and third generations under Stalinist rule had very scant interaction with religion, in fact you could say religion played no part whatsoever in moral instruction (whatever little there was) amongst young Russians. There was no "tradition" to borrow from. Yet, somewhow, there were good people - many millions of them. They even managed to overthrow the communist regime and freedoms (such as the practice of religion) was restored. Their morality was derived from their humanness - the innate goodness in the human race which allows it to overcome oppression, to aim to strive for a more peaceable world.

I would stress again that what 'Christianity' does is to establish and to hold to a Supermundane Constant, an All-Seeing Eye if you wish, that desires (or insists on) certain moral actions and prohibitions. On at least some level the question of 'good' is even a little moot. One assumes it is 'good' and for 'good' purposes. But it seems to me that this is one avenue to some glaring errors, if only for the obvious reason that we often are not sure what is 'good' for us and 'bad' for us (on one hand), and these notions are ever-shifting. My impression thus far is that the specifics of the moral system espoused in Pauline Christianity is no altogether the important thing. A more transcendent thing is to have established, to see established, to accept as established, a pure and rigorous 'entity' (superphysical, outside of time) to which man's doings are held in comparison. It is possible to disagree with the specific moral recommendations and yet it is the whole 'system of consideration', the deep weighing of the questions, and the flexibility or rather adaptability of the core values that is the important part.

My observations have indicated to me the following and I admit that the conclusion disturbs and troubles me: In cultures where there is a strong Christian ethic it is enforced by a religious sense within the body of the people. Naturally it is supported by the rituals of the religion (church attendance, religious-centered education, and the local mores). And that 'traditional culture' embodies a whole range of values that I would indeed describe as 'good' and also desirable. It operates at subtle levels, too. A polite culture, a culture that has the social ways and means to deal with social tensions, even a certain optimism and 'happiness' are all outcomes of a culture that holds to traditional Christian observance. And when people---through those bizarre acids of modernity---have their cultural liturgical relationship eroded out from underneath them, there is a wide process of erosion to so many 'behaviors' that were fundamental to that culture, and which are 'fundamentally Christian'.

So the question seems to be: What in the individual and what in the community of individuals is being held to or valued or emphasized (or repressed too) that 'allows for' a certain social and personalistic decency to appear, to be sustained? I suggest that this is not a small issue. When one attempts to investigate it and to locate 'it' one is forced to cover a good deal of ground. In my own process of discovery what I found---speaking of essences and core values as I do---is that the core 'valued thing' is the person itself. A way of valuation of persons, a 'privileging' of the value of persons, is one of the fundamental strengths of Christianity. I think it is also a weakness, or weakness can attach to it, and this has to be taken into consideration, too. But it seems clear to me at least that Christianity has the ways and means to define persons as one of the central vessels and localities of 'the sacred'. And so the 'arts of personhood' are strong in traditional Christian cultures.

When that central valuation is etched away, little by little one actually loses the emphasis on 'valuation of persons'. It is literally a sort of bond that developed in a shared liturgical atmosphere. This does not mean only church. It is a way of being with people, it has to do with a sort of 'shared ground' where people come together. True, it can be undermined by a variety of causes, but I propose that it is this 'fundamental thing' that is the most important thing that is quite easily lost. Another way of putting it is that what brought it into existence was a whole motion and movement and group of choices---effort!---that created the platform for 'it' to exist and to thrive.

A modern 'atheist' can be a person who simply cannot believe in certain parts of the Story that is Christianity. The Story has been undermined for so many different reasons. It is a story-line that is exceedingly difficult to uphold unless one resolves to hold to Fundamentalist thought-structures. So, there are 'acids' that eat away at that underpinning. Another one has to do with certain forms of 'moral bankruptcy' of Christians themselves. Or fundamentalist rigidity. So, some atheists honestly see themselves as part of a Vanguard that is doing a very constructive thing: doing their part to etch away at unhelpful superstitionism. It is terribly easy, really, to pick a fight with a 'believer' and to 'win' it, given all the bizarre mystico-magical assertions within the Gospels. This is really one of the bigger problems: the way that God shall be defined and the almost archaeological levels within the 'structure of belief'! To be a Christian must I indeed believe all that bizarre shite? At a certain point it all becomes untenable and, to maintain cognitive cohesion something has to be jettisoned. Unfortunately, when the mythological understructure is jettisoned a whole 'other' group of 'things' gets tossed out along with it. The problem is there. What people seem to have attempted is to hopscotch over, laterally, to other Traditions (say Buddhism) that from an early point abandoned many layers of superstition, and then they attempt to reroot themselves, honestly and with integrity in fact, within a cognitive system that is far less stressful and more tenable.

Thank you for conceding that there are some nice atheists out there, but it is a little condescending to suggest that we somehow borrow from traditions to construct our moral framework.

What I have discovered is that, yes, what you say is so: there are some people who can transit from a religiously-enforced ethicism to one where there is no Supermundane Moral Agent and no supporting structure (church, liturgy, association, school), but this is not so for a large part of the population, speaking generally. When the ethical systems that functioned as containers disappear or become ineffective, the individual gets lost easily and quickly. And even if it is not quickly it is then slow and yet it happens. And all sorts of strange behaviors begin to be seen. Is there a solution for this that is not 'going back to Church'? Possibly. But there are so many forces at work that desire to mould and affect persons that without some sort of (allow me to say) religious base to their being in the world, it does seem that the loss of their religion, even if ill-conceived and superstition-laden, represents a definite loss. A quantifiable loss.

They even managed to overthrow the communist regime and freedoms (such as the practice of religion) was restored. Their morality was derived from their humanness - the innate goodness in the human race which allows it to overcome oppression, to aim to strive for a more peaceable world.

I wish I knew more about modern Russian society to be able to say something about 'modern Russia'. I have a sense though that Russia and Colombia (where I live) have some common features. Too much to go into here.

Felasco in the 'Is Religion Guilty of Moving the Goalposts?' thread wrote:We are thought, and thought is inherently divisive in nature. Thus, looking through thought, we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", which when you think about it is a pretty lonely, isolating, and scary place to be. / This lonely, isolated, scary place is buried deep within all of us, and is the source of most personal and social problems.

To assist people in making this transition [through death to rebirth], lesser minds than Jesus have piled on scolding morality, guilt and all kinds of other negative crapola over the centuries.

I would point out the focus on the 'lonely, isolating and scary'. To put it in the most direct terms, again, the orientation of a man who relates to life in this way has 'fallen' to a feminine role, perhaps without knowing it or understanding the ramifications of this as a choice. Essentially, it reads non-virile.

'Thought' may have divisive characteristics, and certainly discrimination, classification, establishing hierarchies, and valuating, are activities that will divide some things from others. But why recoil, emotionally, from responsibility?

The implication, unless I am reading incorrectly, is that the process of 'dying and being reborn' (according to you Felasco), is one of dying to the responsibilities of masculinity, and once again you seem to recommend 'becoming a woman' or woman-like. I don't think I am exaggerating.

It is hard to say what is the cause of 'most personal problems', but I would suggest that a possible 'cure' for some of them might be not allowing oneself to fall into a mood of susceptibility to the 'lonely, isolating and the scary'.

There is also this odd note in the above of resentment of 'scolding moralities and guilt'. How would one counter such a strange statement? One of the best things in life, certainly one of the most strengthening, is a strict personal ethic and a clearly defined personal program of ethics and morals. The implication is that one must do away with such things and then die and rebirth into a 'free state' seems very questionable to me.

Am I misreading?

I would point out the focus on the 'lonely, isolating and scary'.

Ok...

To put it in the most direct terms, again, the orientation of a man who relates to life in this way has 'fallen' to a feminine role, perhaps without knowing it or understanding the ramifications of this as a choice. Essentially, it reads non-virile.

Virile manhood includes not giving a crap what other men might say when we write words like "lonely, isolating and scary".

'Thought' may have divisive characteristics, and certainly discrimination, classification, establishing hierarchies, and valuating, are activities that will divide some things from others.

Ok...

But why recoil, emotionally, from responsibility?

What does that mean, and what does it have to do with what I wrote?

The implication, unless I am reading incorrectly, is that the process of 'dying and being reborn' (according to you Felasco), is one of dying to the responsibilities of masculinity, and once again you seem to recommend 'becoming a woman' or woman-like. I don't think I am exaggerating.

Um, what I wrote describes the human condition, not the male or female condition. I have no idea what "responsibilities of masculinity" means, or what "becoming a woman" has to do with anything in the quoted section above.

It is hard to say what is the cause of 'most personal problems', but I would suggest that a possible 'cure' for some of them might be not allowing oneself to fall into a mood of susceptibility to the 'lonely, isolating and the scary'.

Yes, our busy modern consumer culture is designed to fill our life with distractions so we don't "fall in to the mood of susceptibility" etc. The fact that we often have a hard time letting go of the busy, busy, busy is a hint at what lies underneath.

One of the best things in life, certainly one of the most strengthening, is a strict personal ethic and a clearly defined personal program of ethics and morals.

One of the best things in life, for you.

The implication is that one must do away with such things and then die and rebirth into a 'free state' seems very questionable to me.

Um, well, you're not hearing me much at all, nor do you seem to have much understanding of why Christianity works.

Why does Christianity work? When you think of Christianity what do you think of? I realize that is a rather large question but it has to be answered if only a little bit if we---you, me, anyone---are going to make statements about it. Can you speak a little about what it is? And what part of it you think I am missing?

I realize that my comments about masculinity-feminity are potentially contentious yet I can only say that many things surrounding these issues, for me, are coming into sharper focus and the issue is right at the core of all that interests me. It is hard for me to organize my thoughts well but I hope to make the effort. I have explained this a few times but in case you didn't see it: I use forums as a focus for my readings and also other writing. And right now I am reading material having to do with Traditionalism.

Why does Christianity work? When you think of Christianity what do you think of?

What I said in the post you quoted.

And what part of it you think I am missing?

The part I wrote about.

I realize that my comments about masculinity-feminity are potentially contentious

I don't find them offensive, just off topic. I was attempting to comment on the human condition, and don't really see what gender has to do with it. But, please continue if you wish and maybe I'll see what you mean.

It is hard for me to organize my thoughts well but I hope to make the effort.

I think you generally do a good job of thinking and writing. You seem to have both the passion and knack for this sort of thing.

Here is an attempt to recapitulate:

A selfish and self-centered attitude will bring one eventually to a crash and burn, and in that crash or breakdown one becomes open to new possibilities. The core problem of man is in the me-attitude. By being so wrapped up in me-ness we divide ourself away from the world, from others, and this produces pain (loneliness, anxiety, separation, etc.) When one reaches the bottom which is caused by these attitudes we may then 'die to be reborn'. This is the Christian death and rebirth experience.

• "To the degree that we can "die" to our self obsessed point of view, and be "reborn" in to a focus on the living things around us, the illusion of separation and the associated pain at the heart of our human condition are eased."

With this:

• "To assist people in making this transition, lesser minds than Jesus have piled on scolding morality, guilt and all kinds of other negative crapola over the centuries."

You seem to say that Jesus was above a merely 'scolding morality', and that lesser men have emphasized moralizings that produce guilt which is negative (compared to whatever Jesus does/recommends, which is positive.

Most Esteemed and Nearly Reverend Felasco. A few points, more or less in order, or in disorder:

• It indeed appears true that to become and to be a Christian (if one uses the existent original writings as a reference) is brought about or is a culmination of a 'spiritual crisis' and that the spiritual crisis is part of a conversion process. This appears basic. But the nature of the process, or its tenets, is as yet uncertain. It also seems true that the crisis aspect and the conversion process aspect (the revelation, the epiphany) induce strong emotion. One need look no further than the conversion experience of St. Paul.
• On another but not unrelated level, to become a Christian is to connect with and to be brought into a spiritual current that functions like a 'safe conduct pass' out of a degenerated, dangerous and corrupt world. It connected with some ideas/symbols about the fate of the world, about punishment of evil-doers, and a translation of being from the Earthly plane to another plane. A basic idea at the core of Christianity is that of gaining entrance to a sort of vessel equipped to function both against culture, matter and time, and to allow one to move as it were out of the annihilating grasp of all.
• Too, to be a Christian is to become an individual who takes an active stand against a specific status quo. Roman culture, Roman occupational (military) culture, a 'repressive' State religion (Judaism), and importantly so-called 'pagan culture'. If I am not mistaken, one of the principal areas of self-differentiation was in the arena of sexual conduct. That note is very present in all the early Epistles. In this sense, the internal conversion experience is expressed in modifications of outward behavior. As Archdeacon IC has indicated, it has to do with a radical use of self. (He said it a little differently, I twist it to my purposes).
• In this sense, and in numerous others too, in its very origins, the Christian engages in 'radical discrimination' (about present culture, practiced ethics, etc.) and defines, often very radically, a contrary path that is elucidated in language, yet also in 'liturgical mood'. Language is a tool of kerygma and the object is to influence and to convert. A Christian view of The World might be expressed colloquially comme ça.
• To be a Christian (then) was to be a minority and to seek and to accept and to deal with minority and oppressed status. It started out as a minority religious 'club' as it were, and in later phases then became a wide-spread institution where the non-Christian was the minority. It is reasonable to say that all of us in the West, though, are products of Christian culture (if not a specific Christian conversion-process) and that Christianity in myriad ways still 'functions' in us. Also, we are members of a still-Christian culture insofar as it has not become actively non-Christian in necessary fundamental senses. It remains so until another religious modality supersedes it.
• Another interesting aspect: For a Christian the notion of 'prosperity' is redefined or differently-defined. Instead of a prosperity and well-being defined through possessions and possibly achievements of a 'worldly' sort, the Christian sinks a tap-root into a very different 'ground of nourishment' and radically redefines the very basis of prosperity. This is not at all a minor aspect.
• Here is another interesting aspect of 'being a Christian': It is that the anti-God, the Devil, is understood (or represented) as a veritable person with all sorts of special Powers. And this *person* is intelligent---if in a Machiavellian sense---and is aware of all aspects of the metaphysical conflict of man, and is dedicated to thwarting both the individual Christian and 'corporate Christianity' (if one can put it like that). To be really precise and truthful, in our arts and literature, the Devil has the best role of all! The Devil is also admired and, strange to say, 'worshipped' insofar as we all seem to love a good Evil Antagonist.
  
  
  • "I'll drown more sailors than the mermaid shall;
    I'll slay more gazers than the basilisk;
    I'll play the orator as well as Nestor,
    Deceive more slily than Ulysses could,
    And, like a Sinon, take another Troy.
    I can add colours to the chameleon,
    Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
    And set the murderous Machiavel to school.
    Can I do this, and cannot get a crown?
    Tut, were it farther off, I'll pluck it down."
• To be a Christian, technically, is to be one thing or a group of things actively and positively, and also not to be another thing or group of things, as well actively. To be Christian is therefor a group of positive choices. Or, is it possible to be Christian passively? I would be forced to put more emphasis on the 'active' aspect.

____________________________________

The purpose of this is to attempt a description---not an easy thing---about 'What is Christianity?' I am curious how you see this in relation to your own views.

A few quotes, obviously from a Gnostic strain of thought, with possible relevance to notions put recently put forth on the 'Calvin on the Sensus Divinitatis' thread:

One 'Clement', in the 'Clementine Homilies', wrote:'God rules this world as much through the Devil as through the Son, for both are in his hands."

CG Jung, in 'Answer to Job', wrote:“Clement of Rome taught that God rules with a right and a left hand, the right being Christ, the left Satan. Clement’s view is clearly monotheistic as it unites the opposites as being contained in God…. Later Christianity, however, is dualistic, inasmuch as it splits off one half of the opposites, personified in Satan, and he is eternal in his state of damnation…. If Christianity claims to be monotheism, it becomes unavoidable to assume the opposites as being contained in God.”

CG Jung, to a client, wrote:“Out of evil, so much good has come to me. By keeping quiet, repressing nothing, remaining attentive, and by accepting reality–--taking things as they are, and not as I wanted them to be–--by doing all this, unusual knowledge has come to me and unusual powers as well, such as I could never have imagined before. I always thought that when we accepted things they overpowered us in some way or other. This turns out not to be true at all, and it is only by accepting them that one can assume an attitude towards them. So now I intend to play the game of life, being receptive to whatever comes to me, good and bad, sun and shadow that are forever alternating, and in this way, also accepting my own nature with its negative and positive sides. Thus everything becomes more alive to me. What a fool I was! How I tried to force everything to go according to the way I thought it ought to.”

Brother Immanuel, in the 'Calvin on the Sensus Divinitatis' thread, wrote:And as for Christianity, a curious conclusion follows from your claim: for it alone of all belief systems makes the common duty to "us" and "them" love -- no other belief does that. So it follows that Christianity alone is the paragon of compassionate virtue according to your own claimed highest "core" value. What an astonishing turn of events!

This is indeed a significant aspect of Christianity. I should have included it in my bulleted items above. The Christian emphasis on love is inseparable from Christianity. The statement: 'Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love', does not leave a good deal of wiggle room!

This from the Epistle 1 John:

• Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
  
  By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

It is most certainly an 'astonishing turn of events' this Christian love (although I think IC was referring to the conclusion that popped out as if on its own), and yet it is not at all unproblematical as I see it. But one really does have to state that the idea of Love, and meditations and musings on it, and dedication to it, and whole lives given to it as an educator for example, in pedagogy, or the history of the institution of hospitals in the West, and in so many different areas and over a large segment of European time, is quite quintessentially Christian. (Although I have a strong feeling that a similar if perhaps more exclusive (tribal) idea, was operating among the Pharisaic Jewish culture.)

So, it can (did and does) operate at a very high level in our culture, and has moulded our culture incredibly, yet at the same time, if misunderstood? if degenerated? may I say feminized? is the source of a whole plethora of troublesome things. At this point, to speak quite honestly, I cannot say that I trust 'love', nor those who profess it, nor the word itself which seems totally corrupted. You cannot really use the word in sensible discourse and though it should refer to something of adamantine strength, most of the time it sounds simply flaccid, indulged, weak---even pathetic. And all these bizarre qualities in people that come into the world under the name of 'love'? I am supposed to 'love' all that and them?

There has to be a whole corresponding counter-balance if the idea of 'love' (caritas, agape, eros, philia) if the idea is to have sense and power. As in the Kabbalah. If on one side there is Love, what quality or trait must exist on the other side to counter-balance it?

Duty? Severity? Force of authority? Moral authority? Discipline?

Brothers & Sisters in the Faith & Non-Faith

• Spiritual and metaphysical blessings on the one hand,
  and for the recalcitrant,
  if God's truths will not be received,
  merely thermodynamic and physical blessings to you.
  
  Amen.

________________________________________

Some sophomoric thoughts from a befuddled mind:

The problem of the Fall is that it posits, within specific time, a specific moment when Evil came into practical existence. One cannot assume any 'world' or 'worlds' prior to the Creation, and so no metaphysical Evil. A great deal hinges on the Talking Snake and his (her?) mischief. How could it be that in an ontological situation free of Evil that there lived and operated the Agent of Evil? If one were speculative in nature one might imagine that, in this, Evil and its possibility was created along with everything else. Be that as it may…

It happened that certain choices were made, true, but it must be recognized that Evil is clearly a punishment, a consequence, and as such is a creative and positive act (choice) by God himself. I don't think the 'privation of the good' argument holds here. God punished the Disobedient Twosome (and the Causal Third) and punishment (unless I am mistaken) was God's authoring of evil, evil fate, evil consequence, and all human problems. Adam & Eve could not of themselves have created such a Fate for themselves and must be seen as the 'victims' (to place it in modern and liberal terms) of a Superior Will.

I will further suggest (changing the subject slightly) that the farthest extension of Christian Love, the inevitable extension, is to a love that redeems the Devil himself. Curious though it it may be if, in real monism, God is understood as the Author of Evil. It is a tough angle to pursue, I know, and so give it time, but:

• God = Devil

Now, there is a Gnostic and dualist possibility: divide Evil off from God. I suggest that in this sense Orthodox Christianity in reality holds to 'gnostic' and dualist doctrines which are the product of errors of thinking.

Be that as it may. The farthest extension and greatest expression of Christian love is to really and truly love the Devil. He should be helped and not so mercilessly reviled and, yes, persecuted. Why did he rebel in the first place? What really was the situation between him and God that caused the dispute? A best-case scenario is if he could be rounded up and put on anti-psychotic medication. Additionally, it seems that he might be convinced to voluntarily submit to therapy. I don't accept the 'envy' argument, myself. At the core of such abysmal anger there must be a frustrated person, and that person (technically speaking) should be reachable through God's Essence: Love.

Yet, if the Devil as an active and volitional agent in our world (the Dark Prince of the World) is understood as not being real, then what precisely shall we be 'saved' from? Describe salvifics if the Devil is not a real and bona fide potency.

Further complications: If the Devil is really part-and-parcel of God's creation, and Evil a positive act by God Himself (punishment, fate), from what now are we to be saved?

In what way, now, are we to resist and combat evil? It cannot even be defined any longer, not with any clarity. If it cannot be defined concretely, does it not remain superstitious? And if superstitious, paranoid?

A selfish and self-centered attitude will bring one eventually to a crash and burn, and in that crash or breakdown one becomes open to new possibilities.

It may lead to crash and burn. One may become open to new possibilities.

The core problem of man is in the me-attitude. By being so wrapped up in me-ness we divide ourself away from the world, from others, and this produces pain (loneliness, anxiety, separation, etc.)

This is perhaps a quibble, but perhaps I can clarify a bit.

The way you've stated it implies that the problem lies with the content of thought, ie. the me-attitude. As I see it, the me-attitude is a symptom of the inherently divisive nature of thought. As evidence, everyone seems to have the "me-attitude", it's a just a matter of degree.

When one reaches the bottom which is caused by these attitudes we may then 'die to be reborn'. This is the Christian death and rebirth experience.

Dying to reborn could be said to happen in any moment when we step out of the "everything is all about me" frame of mind. The phrase is not limited to only a permanent conversion process.

You seem to say that Jesus was above a merely 'scolding morality', and that lesser men have emphasized moralizings that produce guilt which is negative (compared to whatever Jesus does/recommends, which is positive.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned Jesus, as imho, he's not necessary. The process described by the phrase "dying to be reborn" is useful or not whoever first used that phrase. Perhaps all we can say is that Jesus is regarded by many as being a leading salesman for that insight.