Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 9:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:05 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 10:22 pm Nowhere, in the context used, describes a non-existent ability.

A "where" means a place. An "ability" is not a place.

I didn't say "where", I said "nowhere" which is actually a word in the dictionary

Yep, it is. So is "ability." And so is "grammar."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 6:03 pmChrist spoke so explicitly and forceful about things like "loving enemies," "turning the other cheek," and "suffering for righteousness's sake," that there is not a sensible reading of the Gospels at all that will allow the Inquisitions or Crusades to be called "Christian." Nevertheless, that is what secular historians have preferred to do.

Before I proceed to comment on some of your recent posts I felt a need to get clear — to have you get clear — about one important aspect of asserted Christian ethics and morality. It might have been best if I’d have started by isolating some other element (there are many I will comment on) but this one has stuck with me and I wanted to see what you would say.

Note that I think I well understand the ethical admonitions of the Sermon of the Mount, that is I grasp what is being said and recommended as the proper and Christian ethics. So may I start with:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

I would like to have your opinion of my (ever so subtle) rewriting of this ethical admonition:

Whosoever shall rape your daughter in her vagina, to him offer her asshole as well.

Obviously, what I assert here is that at the most basic and fundamental level this particular Christian admonition is not only impracticable but insane. You could never ask any person to actually live according to such values when things of real import and consequence are at stake.

Can you offer some comment here?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:48 pm

Whosoever shall rape your daughter in her vagina, to him offer her asshole as well.

Obviously, what I assert here is that at the most basic and fundamental level this particular Christian admonition is not only impracticable but insane. You could never ask any person to actually live according to such values when things of real import and consequence are at stake.

Can you offer some comment here?

Here's a charming story from the bible; Genesis 19 to be precise:
19 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:48 pm Obviously, what I assert here is that at the most basic and fundamental level this particular Christian admonition is not only impracticable but insane. You could never ask any person to actually live according to such values when things of real import and consequence are at stake.

Can you offer some comment here?

Yes. I'm willing to answer your objection. But there isn't a need to range into the disgusting here. We don't have to invent grotesque sexual applications that the passage in question never made, never intended to speak about, and didn't include. That's a fallacy called "reductio ad absurdum," or "reducing to the ridiculous." It rarely aids calm and rational thought on a question. More often, it produces a gross distortion of the salient point. So let's not indulge in that.

The question stands or falls on its own intelligibility, I would say. It is, minus the reductio, a reasonable question. And I will address it shortly.

But before I do, I should point out that I have to note that you have not remarked on the central point of my referring to things like the sermon on the mount. Whatever you personally may think about the practicability of the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount, or on the justness of any other such commandments to pacificsm or goodwill to enemies, the important fact is this:

Secular historians, in including things such as the Inquisitions, the Crusades or the Wars of Religion as culturally "Christian" are manifestly either lying or incompetent.

As unpalatable as that may be to recognize, there can be no doubt about it at all, when one views those commandments. And whether or not one regards the commandments as practical has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that statement is so. It should be abundantly obvious to anyone who has any knowledge at all of the teachings of Christ, and makes any use of them at all when he/she applies the word "Christian."

That's the main point: there is no such thing as the phony construct traditional secular historians have invented. It does not reflect anything in Christ's teaching at all. And anybody can check, and will find out that's so.

So why, I must now ask you personally, do you think you are at such pains to characterize as "Christian" something that is clearly, verifiably not? What's making you want to distort the truth there?

Now, to your secondary (and off topic) point.

As to the practicality of Christ's pacifistic teachings, that's a completely different issue. It changes nothing with regard to the above point.

However, it's much more practical than you imagine. Christ never commanded or expected that anybody who did not actually follow Him would be able to do it. He knew full well that for ordinary people, his teaching on the Mount would be "impractical." As He said, "Without Me, you can do nothing," (John 15:5) meaning, "Without a dynamic, living relationship to Me, you cannot be disciples of my teaching." The primary question in the practical application of all Christ's teaching, not just the Sermon on the Mount, is what is your relationship to Jesus Christ?

If you have none, then nothing Christ really taught will prove morally or actually "practical" to a person. And He meant it to be that way.

However, for the Christian (the real one) it's not only practical but commanded. It's an ideal, because it's so contrary to secular human nature, and even a disciple of Christ has to struggle between his old inclinations of human nature and the new values of his faith. And people have, indeed, committed to applying such teachings. The Quakers would be a clear example of thoroughgoing pacificism in the name of obedience to the commandment you mention. Another case would be a person like Desmond Doss (if you've seen the movie "Hacksaw Ridge," which I highly recommend), whom, if you know, you know what I mean). But all Christians, to the degree that they are able, strive to attain the willingness to endure abuse and enmity against them, and to follow Christ's commandment to "bless those who curse you, pray for those who are abusive to you." (Luke 6:28)

Now, does that mean you "turn the cheek" of another person? No. It means you decide not to be spiteful and abusive yourself, when you are threatened or harmed. You forgive. You don't return abuse. You don't join the problem, but present yourself as the end of it. And you are content to see justice served in eternity, not here, and not on your own terms but on God's.

Since Christ can forgive you, then you also should forgive others. Even enemies. And your justification, and the justice due to you, will be in the Kingdom of God, not here, and by God's hand, not your own.

But to surrender somebody else to their enemies? That's not commanded nor thought of in the passage.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 2:39 pmYes. I'm willing to answer your objection. But there isn't a need to range into the disgusting here. We don't have to invent grotesque sexual applications that the passage in question never made, never intended to speak about, and didn't include. That's a fallacy called "reductio ad absurdum," or "reducing to the ridiculous." It rarely aids calm and rational thought on a question. More often, it produces a gross distortion of the salient point. So let's not indulge in that.

The question stands or falls on its own intelligibility, I would say. It is, minus the reductio, a reasonable question. And I will address it shortly.

Now, to your secondary (and off topic) point.

As to the practicality of Christ's pacifistic teachings, that's a completely different issue. It changes nothing with regard to the above point.

However, it's much more practical than you imagine. Christ never commanded or expected that anybody who did not actually follow Him would be able to do it. He knew full well that for ordinary people, his teaching on the Mount would be "impractical." As He said, "Without Me, you can do nothing," (John 15:5) meaning, "Without a dynamic, living relationship to Me, you cannot be disciples of my teaching." The primary question in the practical application of all Christ's teaching, not just the Sermon on the Mount, is what is your relationship to Jesus Christ?

I do not, not in any sense, consider the objection I raise to be off-topic. And I must, and we all must, range into the disgusting when we consider the sort of *evil* that is done, man-to-man, here in our world. The really appalling acts are, all of them, really disgusting. So they must be examined to *test* the ethical principles.

You may reasonably ask Why are you starting the next phase of our discussion with a seemingly outrageous example to think about? Fair enough, but it is an entirely well-grounded concern. To protect one's own, to protect -- or not -- what one values.

My assertion: Christian ethics in the absolute strict sense are not practicable except by a committed religious zealot. And you have given me a proper and an honest answer: "Christ never commanded or expected that anybody who did not actually follow Him would be able to do it".

So, this real & true follower of Jesus when his daughter is raped frontally will then offer his daughter's rear-end to the rapist. If I am not mistaken you have provided a good answer. True, the father will allow his daughter to make the true & proper *Christian* decision. But the decision is already implied: resist not evil. If a rapist rapes you in your vagina turn over and offer him your asshole.

It is a yes or a no, Immanuel Can. Talk about a real and concrete example. What is the right choice?

Similarly, if someone -- you in this case since you certainly must be such a committed follower of Christ as you say you are -- if you are sued for, say, the ownership of your home and your property you will stand aside and let that team of lawyers take what they will. You will not mount a legal defense, and Heaven forbid you would ever oppose someone -- a home-invader -- entering your home to rob you (or as I say to rape your daughter).

The reason I focus on these two examples is for the following reason: I intuit that you Christian declaration of ethics is a sham. You will now spin-off into layer after layer of sophistical argumentation to defend the core of the erthical principle.

So here is the reason why I started here: I am much more interested in general and sanely practicable social and jurisprudential ethics, withinin a Christian culture and therefore within Christendom, than I am with what I religious zealot (and the true follower of Jesus) recommends, does or says. I am interested in society and civilization and therefore this is where I focus my attention.

I am making an effort here to explain to you my orientation.

You are a Christian fanatic and zealot by your own definition. According to you those who do not follow the strict admonitions of Jesus cannot be and are not *true Christians*. My view is that nearly no one, except one like you who, for example, will allow his daughter to be raped and then offer her butt-end for further delectation (to serve the cause of Christ), could ever follow the admonition you seem to recommend. And any person who does so is a criminal lunatic. This is where I stand.

I can apply this somewhat outrageous example to many many different situations.

As to the practicality of Christ's pacifistic teachings, that's a completely different issue. It changes nothing with regard to the above point.

No, not in any sense a completely different issue. It is the issue itself.

Now, does that mean you "turn the cheek" of another person? No. It means you decide not to be spiteful and abusive yourself, when you are threatened or harmed. You forgive. You don't return abuse. You don't join the problem, but present yourself as the end of it. And you are content to see justice served in eternity, not here, and not on your own terms but on God's.

Yes, I get the point. But then the true Christian girl, to follow the admonition of Christ, must herself offer her posterior to the frontal rapist. It is not a reduction ad absurdum, it is an actual application of the recommended ethic in a specific situation. Turn the other cheeck or offer the other cheek corresponds, directly, to offering her other hole (in the name a Jesus and in *true service* to Jesus).

Do you agree that the true Christian girl should do this? or should she resist?

The primary question in the practical application of all Christ's teaching, not just the Sermon on the Mount, is what is your relationship to Jesus Christ?

Let me put it this way then. If having a 'relationship to Jesus Christ' means that a father must come to accept the evil that is done to his daughter in order to preserve or strengthen his relationship to Jesus Christ, and if to be a sincere Christian he would teach her to "offer her other cheek" to a rapist, then both Jesus Christ and the followers of Jesus Christ are, literally, mad.

You must work with these sorts of examples, IC, in order to understand what they propose and ramify.

So why, I must now ask you personally, do you think you are at such pains to characterize as "Christian" something that is clearly, verifiably not? What's making you want to distort the truth there?

Fair enough. Please clearly indicate how I am distorting the truth? What is the truth that I am distorting? Spell it out precisely.
\
The reasons are obvious. In Christian culture there is certainly a general appreciation for and an application of ethical principles that have an origin in the Gospels, that is clear. But they are modified and adapted, and for good reasons.

The Christianity that you propose must be, or needs to be, or will eventually be, a universal ethic, will never appear on this or any other planet. So, you are intellectually drunk, or a sham-artist, or simply half-mad. There is no other alternative that I can see. But it certainly does not mean that I reject Christian-ethics. I seem to know more about them than you do. So, I reject you and your absurd approach! (But in a friendly way). If you are a Christian, and you have these sick values, I must seek some sort of modification of them and seek out those who have done this.

And I am still holding in my mind the example I submitted for your examination. What have you decided?

Let's see where you really & truly stand here, then I will know. Fair enough?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 3:15 pm I do not, not in any sense, consider the objection I raise to be off-topic.

It has zero to do with the verifiable fact that no matter how allegedly practical or impractical the teachings of Christ might be, they are manifestly the basis on which to call something "Christian" or not.

And in that sense, it's completely irrelevant whether or not one "likes" the teachings. All that's salient is what the teachings actually ARE.

I wrote that point in red. I cannot believe that you did not see it. Yet you blithely ignored it.

I can only conclude you have no rejoinder or response, but do not wish to realize I'm telling the truth about that. And if you doubted, you could simply read and see.

My assertion: Christian ethics in the absolute strict sense are not practicable

That's a very different question from the problem of misguided secular historicism.

So, this real & true follower of Jesus...

I answered your question. I'm astonished you didn't notice. (Actually, now that I think of it, I'm pretty sure you already know.)

But go back, and you'll see that I spent more than half my message doing just that.

In brief: the Christian obligation to love enemies does not entail any obligation to hand innocents over to enemies. It comes with a concommitant duty to protect others against harm.

That's more of an answer than your question actually deserves, I must say.

I am much more interested in general and sanely practicable social and jurisprudential ethics, withinin a Christian culture and therefore within Christendom,

Yes, I know that. But then, if that is so, you are "much more interested" in delusions than truths -- at least in that particular regard.

However, I would prefer to think you're simply too impressed with "culture" and oblivious to what "Christianity" actually says. That seems to be a more charitable and accurate reading.

You are a Christian fanatic...

That's not my assessment. But if you want, you can have it as yours. I cannot prevent that.

I am still holding in my mind the example I submitted for your examination. What have you decided?

I have decided you have a much more prurient and immature mind than I formerly thought. And I've decided you have less interest in being answered than in being childishly shocking. I'm recallibrating my former belief in your personal integrity. I'm becoming convinced now that you're not listening, nor thinking carefully about what I say anymore, and I've decided you had your mind made up long ago. So I'm reconsidering whether or not it's even worth bothering anymore.

And that's a full and honest answer. since you asked, I'm telling you exactly what you're inclining me to decide.

I'll let you know when I've decided finally.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 5:44 pmI have decided you have a much more prurient and immature mind than I formerly thought. And I've decided you have less interest in being answered than in being childishly shocking. I'm recallibrating my former belief in your personal integrity. I'm becoming convinced now that you're not listening, nor thinking carefully about what I say anymore, and I've decided you had your mind made up long ago. So I'm reconsidering whether or not it's even worth bothering anymore.

This does not seem a fair assessment to me. True, I chose a very strong, and a difficult problem to mull over, but my purpose was not concealed. So I am to understand that because I chose this dramatic example that you doubt my integrity? But would you be able to explain clearly why it is that you think I lack integrity? Was it because of a sexual reference?

It has zero to do with the verifiable fact that no matter how allegedly practical or impractical the teachings of Christ might be, they are manifestly the basis on which to call something "Christian" or not.

But this is not, and was not, quite my point. What I have learned is that Christian ethics is a blending of different currents of thought. The ethics, the rules & regulations of a society, and here I mean those that have a Christian base, are in all cases adaptations of ethics derived from, say, the Gospels, but they always involve many other different trends of thought. Be that Platonic or Aristotelian, Stoic, or derived from Jewish and Roman law, and so much more. That is what comprises Christianity in practice. You can offer no example, except perhaps in some minuscule sect or cult, in which the ethics and the "Christian relationship" that you champion has actually, or could actually, be practiced. And I think this is an important point to bring out. In some sense at least your reference point is irrelevant.

Now, I intend to respond to numerous other elements of your first two recent posts but I wanted to get this clear. These things take time. I had to probe you to see where you stand.

I wrote that point in red. I cannot believe that you did not see it. Yet you blithely ignored it.

I passed it over is the better way to think of it. I am not interested in talking, right now, about Inquisitions or Crusades. However, the question of a conquest or expansion of, say, a Christian kingdom into a region that is, also say, not Christian or not enough Christian, and the establishment, let's say again, of a better-grounded general system (of government) is a good area to examine. Plato deals on this in the Seventh Epistle. There is a justification for conquering a state or nation to install a 'better system'. I mean he makes that case.

The fact of the matter is that the Northern European tribes and regions were all conquered in this way. And it was through these actions that Europe and its various states came to be. The basis of language, education, ethics, jurisprudence, and so much else, has all derived from these prior actions. Those actions (expansion, conquest) certainly did not come about through some type of Christian apologetic pleading. And yet, once settled, once 'tamed' let's say, or once yoked, then the education-processes did in fact begin. And of course you understand that here, with the mention again of paideia, that I am referring to those European process I accept as Christian (Christianesque) but which you reject because they are not Christian enough (or not your sort of Christianity).

I do not accept your term misguided secular historicism. You seem to me to be looking at the entire issue wrongly.

In brief: the Christian obligation to love enemies does not entail any obligation to hand innocents over to enemies. It comes with a concomitant duty to protect others against harm.

Sure, and I fully understood that. There is a high degree of ambiguity in the admonitions of the Sermon of the Mount. Some interpret the strike on the cheek to which one should turn the other cheek as a mere 'slap'. One should not respond to an insult and, in this way, take the bait (and find one enmeshed in conflict), and that is understood. But the entire admonition necessitates interpretation, and when it is interpreted, and when it is applied, it takes on a similar but also a different form.

Yes, I know that. But then, if that is so, you are "much more interested" in delusions than truths -- at least in that particular regard.

Sure, I understand that you sincerely think this! But as a matter of response to you I say that I am not at all sure that you are grounded on a secure foundation. But the conversation about what is a delusion and what is truth certainly interests me. And I am reminded of a 'glaring delusion' of yours: literal belief in the Garden of Eden story (in which you believe literally as you stated). So please, and by all means, let's proceed to expose delusions. I have a feeling that I am going to fare much better than you!

AJ: You are a Christian fanatic...
IC: That's not my assessment. But if you want, you can have it as yours. I cannot prevent that.

fa•nat•ic (fəˈnæt ɪk)
n.
1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics; zealot.
adj.
2. fanatical.
[1515–25; < Latin fānāticus pertaining to a temple, derivative of fānum temple]
syn: fanatic, zealot, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary enthusiasm or support for a cause, belief, or activity. fanatic and zealot both suggest extreme or excessive devotion. fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. zealot, slightly less unfavorable in implication, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform. devotee is a milder term, suggesting enthusiasm but not to the exclusion of other interests or possible points of view.

I do not think I am too far off the mark here. But to some degree all religious positions involve enthusiasm and hence fanaticism (of a sort).

If I had to choose one word it would be 'Christian fundamentalist'. I am not so much concerned about fundamentalism -- I think your desire to ground yourself in fundamentals is necessary -- but I am concerned about the defined platform of fundamental beliefs. And my platform, such as it is, is wider and more ample than yours.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 5:27 pmI can see that you haven't stayed entirely with the "California radicalism" thing, but in your own thinking, have moved somewhat beyond it.

Can you say a bit more about this? You say that I have not stayed entirely with the California radicalism (my own term for the cultural environment) and have moved 'somewhat beyond it'.

What is indicated with the somewhat qualifier? You might have said that I 'moved beyond it' but instead said moved somewhat beyond it.

What exactly do you see as not being sufficiently beyond it?

It is an odd way to express whatever it is that you mean. Can you elaborate?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 6:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 5:44 pmI have decided you have a much more prurient and immature mind than I formerly thought. And I've decided you have less interest in being answered than in being childishly shocking. I'm recallibrating my former belief in your personal integrity. I'm becoming convinced now that you're not listening, nor thinking carefully about what I say anymore, and I've decided you had your mind made up long ago. So I'm reconsidering whether or not it's even worth bothering anymore.

This does not seem a fair assessment to me. True, I chose a very strong, and a difficult problem to mull over,

Not at all, actually. I found it so simple that I dealt with it immediately. But I was astonished that you thought it was challenging, and a little dismayed to find it so childishly rude. There are many cases you might have chosen, of course; the rudeness was clearly gratutious and intended to shock.

It didn't. But it did make me wonder what was going on in your head.

Still you're generally more thoughtful than that, and we all do regrettable things from time to time, so I'll let it slide. I want to keep liking you...not dismissing you as somebody who operates on that level.

It has zero to do with the verifiable fact that no matter how allegedly practical or impractical the teachings of Christ might be, they are manifestly the basis on which to call something "Christian" or not.

But this is not, and was not, quite my point.

But it was mine: and it's crucial to the discussion of what "Christian" means, upon which we have spent so much time already.

That you dodged it suggests you can't deal with it. But "Christ" is the root of the word "Christian," obviously; and you cannot avoid the expedient of comparing what people pass of as if it were "Christian" with the things Christ actually said, taught and represented, I suggest.

I wrote that point in red. I cannot believe that you did not see it. Yet you blithely ignored it.

I passed it over is the better way to think of it. I am not interested in talking, right now, about Inquisitions or Crusades.

Funny.

You alleged I passed over a point I treated extensively. And then you do it yourself, and announce that you did it intentionally.

I am referring to those European process I accept as Christian (Christianesque) but which you reject because they are not Christian enough (or not your sort of Christianity.

"Christ's sort of Christianity," you mean. I'm saying He's the Authority, not me.

AJ: You are a Christian fanatic...

IC: That's not my assessment. But if you want, you can have it as yours. I cannot prevent that.

fa•nat•ic (fəˈnæt ɪk)

I know what it means. But it's pejorative. And it facilitates ad hominem dismissiveness on your side.

The truth is that what I am matters not at all, whether you be right or wrong about that. The truth or falsehood of what I say, that is what matters.

But I can see it's easier to be ad hom than to address the particular claims. So I understand the stratagem. I'm just not distracted by it. It's a "shiny object" of no particular value.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 6:31 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 7:40 pm

What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

To understand this a person needs to appreciate the purpose of Christianity and its potential for our being. Such understanding is very rare.

Err, no...the majority of people are normal intelligent human beings just busy living reality for what it actually is, without the mental and emotionally programmed denial filter. They are not trying to escape it's mighty jaw by wishfully thinking it is some kind of alternative reality like Disney Land.

The truth is not for the faint of heart. Humans in fact, have become more and more helpless due to their unique capacity to use conceptual language which has slowed down their capability to defend or to fend for themselves. The human species is both the predator and the prey. A human baby is totally helpless in nature, being soley dependant for the first 10 years of it's life on some other being to ensure and seal it's own survival. Reality for all living organisms, including humans, is based on a predator and prey existence. That's the hard cold raw truth of nature, than humans cannot handle because they have conditioned themselves to a hopeless dependency for false commodities such as .. IT technology, electrical gadgets, machines, medicine, and money, etc etc... if all these things were to disappear overnight, they would be running around like headless chickens...modern living has weakened the human species, it has not evloved it in anyway shape or form. Humanity is basically just a timebomb waiting to explode.

Humans are not the apex of the living sentient world, they are actually the opposite, they are extremely vulnerable and more dangerous than any other species that ever lived... for obvious reasons, that most intelligent people will figure out in an instance..

Like everything else that lives and breathes on this planet, humans too are subject to the same fate, that is to run the gauntlet of predator and prey - it's the same trap that is for all life on earth.

Christianity is a story told by story telling apes. It's about as real as the tale of Bugs Bunny.

It's like who can tell the tallest tale - and who would believe it - that's easy - we're all innocent children here, we're all born without a story, we were all once the same blank slate....where our culture conditioned our unique individual story.

.

DaM, you are trying to condemn what you don't understand. For example if I asked you the purpose of Christianity. I mean this theoretically and not a matter of belief. The Bible is a psychological text and not a literal text. It provokes pondering for those who sense something of value for human being as a whole.

But if you are unaware of the purpose of Christianity, the significance of rebirth, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection at least theoretically, you are condemning your own interpretations.

You write of NOW. It should be obvious to you that as creatures of reaction Man serves the process of existence. NOW is not in a process. Rather a process or existence itself takes place within NOW.

Christianity IMO is far deeper than most are aware of. People can argue it and it is like the "Ship of Fools" Plato described; all meaningless opinions lacking the potency to profit from it in their being as is possible for a person.

What makes more sense: condemning what we don't understand or opening our minds with the help of the Spirit to contemplation and remembering what was always known?

"Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "

Who understands that unmixed attention enables a person to get out of their own way long enough to ponder from the depth of their being rather than reacting from their own defense mechanisms. Yet people want to argue what they do not understand. Apparently it is the way of the world.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 6:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 5:27 pmI can see that you haven't stayed entirely with the "California radicalism" thing, but in your own thinking, have moved somewhat beyond it.

Can you say a bit more about this? You say that I have not stayed entirely with the California radicalism (my own term for the cultural environment) and have moved 'somewhat beyond it'.

What is indicated with the somewhat qualifier? You might have said that I 'moved beyond it' but instead said moved somewhat beyond it.

What exactly do you see as not being sufficiently beyond it?

It is an odd way to express whatever it is that you mean. Can you elaborate?

Yes.

You still seem to share the CR tendency to think in terms of political revolutions. That's stayed, it seems. But you are much more conservative in your orientation than they tend to be...they tend to lean hard Left. You seem much more convinced of the value of intellection than they would be...they prefer to think that manipulating social movements is the same as controlling thoughts. You don't seem convinced of that.

But the "not sufficiently beyond" thing, I would suggest, is that tendency to think of culture and politics as primary. I say so because almost all your analyses immediately snap to that level. CR'ers tend to do it because of Marxism. But a person can't read Bork and like him, as you do, and easily stay a Marxist. (The same for Weaver, I think.) But you do it, too. The large-scale civilizational movement thing is just a conservative version of the same belief, namely, that large-scale social waves are determinant of the important and telling issues.

Other differences: you don't seem to have quite relegated religion to being "the opium of the masses," or anything like that. You seem to see some Romantic (large "R") value in retaining at least a cultural pretense to religiosity. CR'ers wouldn't. They tend to be secular about Christianity and Judaism, but totally credulous about Buddhism or other sundry cultisms of various kinds (think of the California drug cults, gurus and bhagwans of the not-too-distant past).

Nowadays, Cali seems more or less a welter of smug, secular hedonism, coupled with rabid Leftist politics. I haven't been there in maybe five years, but when I last was, that was sure how things were rolling...not in the outlying areas, of course, but in the big cities, for sure.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 7:16 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 6:31 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 7:40 pm


To understand this a person needs to appreciate the purpose of Christianity and its potential for our being. Such understanding is very rare.

Err, no...the majority of people are normal intelligent human beings just busy living reality for what it actually is, without the mental and emotionally programmed denial filter. They are not trying to escape it's mighty jaw by wishfully thinking it is some kind of alternative reality like Disney Land.

The truth is not for the faint of heart. Humans in fact, have become more and more helpless due to their unique capacity to use conceptual language which has slowed down their capability to defend or to fend for themselves. The human species is both the predator and the prey. A human baby is totally helpless in nature, being soley dependant for the first 10 years of it's life on some other being to ensure and seal it's own survival. Reality for all living organisms, including humans, is based on a predator and prey existence. That's the hard cold raw truth of nature, than humans cannot handle because they have conditioned themselves to a hopeless dependency for false commodities such as .. IT technology, electrical gadgets, machines, medicine, and money, etc etc... if all these things were to disappear overnight, they would be running around like headless chickens...modern living has weakened the human species, it has not evloved it in anyway shape or form. Humanity is basically just a timebomb waiting to explode.

Humans are not the apex of the living sentient world, they are actually the opposite, they are extremely vulnerable and more dangerous than any other species that ever lived... for obvious reasons, that most intelligent people will figure out in an instance..

Like everything else that lives and breathes on this planet, humans too are subject to the same fate, that is to run the gauntlet of predator and prey - it's the same trap that is for all life on earth.

Christianity is a story told by story telling apes. It's about as real as the tale of Bugs Bunny.

It's like who can tell the tallest tale - and who would believe it - that's easy - we're all innocent children here, we're all born without a story, we were all once the same blank slate....where our culture conditioned our unique individual story.

.

DaM, you are trying to condemn what you don't understand. For example if I asked you the purpose of Christianity. I mean this theoretically and not a matter of belief. The Bible is a psychological text and not a literal text. It provokes pondering for those who sense something of value for human being as a whole.

But if you are unaware of the purpose of Christianity, the significance of rebirth, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection at least theoretically, you are condemning your own interpretations.

You write of NOW. It should be obvious to you that as creatures of reaction Man serves the process of existence. NOW is not in a process. Rather a process or existence itself takes place within NOW.

Christianity IMO is far deeper than most are aware of. People can argue it and it is like the "Ship of Fools" Plato described; all meaningless opinions lacking the potency to profit from it in their being as is possible for a person.

What makes more sense: condemning what we don't understand or opening our minds with the help of the Spirit to contemplation and remembering what was always known?

"Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "

Who understands that unmixed attention enables a person to get out of their own way long enough to ponder from the depth of their being rather than reacting from their own defense mechanisms. Yet people want to argue what they do not understand. Apparently it is the way of the world.

The Bible is a psyop written by the Roman Empire to control and manipulate gullible people.

Christianity is a Scam.

And religious followers of all Christian denominations are a Cult.

Life is a murderous torture chamber.

Fact!

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 7:39 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 7:16 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 6:31 am

Err, no...the majority of people are normal intelligent human beings just busy living reality for what it actually is, without the mental and emotionally programmed denial filter. They are not trying to escape it's mighty jaw by wishfully thinking it is some kind of alternative reality like Disney Land.

The truth is not for the faint of heart. Humans in fact, have become more and more helpless due to their unique capacity to use conceptual language which has slowed down their capability to defend or to fend for themselves. The human species is both the predator and the prey. A human baby is totally helpless in nature, being soley dependant for the first 10 years of it's life on some other being to ensure and seal it's own survival. Reality for all living organisms, including humans, is based on a predator and prey existence. That's the hard cold raw truth of nature, than humans cannot handle because they have conditioned themselves to a hopeless dependency for false commodities such as .. IT technology, electrical gadgets, machines, medicine, and money, etc etc... if all these things were to disappear overnight, they would be running around like headless chickens...modern living has weakened the human species, it has not evloved it in anyway shape or form. Humanity is basically just a timebomb waiting to explode.

Humans are not the apex of the living sentient world, they are actually the opposite, they are extremely vulnerable and more dangerous than any other species that ever lived... for obvious reasons, that most intelligent people will figure out in an instance..

Like everything else that lives and breathes on this planet, humans too are subject to the same fate, that is to run the gauntlet of predator and prey - it's the same trap that is for all life on earth.

Christianity is a story told by story telling apes. It's about as real as the tale of Bugs Bunny.

It's like who can tell the tallest tale - and who would believe it - that's easy - we're all innocent children here, we're all born without a story, we were all once the same blank slate....where our culture conditioned our unique individual story.

.

DaM, you are trying to condemn what you don't understand. For example if I asked you the purpose of Christianity. I mean this theoretically and not a matter of belief. The Bible is a psychological text and not a literal text. It provokes pondering for those who sense something of value for human being as a whole.

But if you are unaware of the purpose of Christianity, the significance of rebirth, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection at least theoretically, you are condemning your own interpretations.

You write of NOW. It should be obvious to you that as creatures of reaction Man serves the process of existence. NOW is not in a process. Rather a process or existence itself takes place within NOW.

Christianity IMO is far deeper than most are aware of. People can argue it and it is like the "Ship of Fools" Plato described; all meaningless opinions lacking the potency to profit from it in their being as is possible for a person.

What makes more sense: condemning what we don't understand or opening our minds with the help of the Spirit to contemplation and remembering what was always known?

"Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "

Who understands that unmixed attention enables a person to get out of their own way long enough to ponder from the depth of their being rather than reacting from their own defense mechanisms. Yet people want to argue what they do not understand. Apparently it is the way of the world.

The Bible is a psyop written by the Roman Empire to control and manipulate gullible people.

Christianity is a Scam.

And religious followers of all Christian denominations are a Cult.

Life is a murderous torture chamber.

Fact!

Again, you are good at condemnation but still have yet to consider the purpose of Christianity and even how to approach this question. Of course there are many cults calling themselves Christian but produce their opposite. So a modern day seeker of truth must verify the truth of Christianity not only from their emotions but from logic as well.

I started a thread asking if Christianity is logical. No one understood it so I abandoned it until someone comes along I can reason with. Yet Western Man is compelled to do just that; to balance out the needs of the heart and the needs of the mind in their paths to understand the meaning of the light the depths of their being is attracted to.

I am lucky since I am related to the great minds of the church as well as an artist capable of depicting the interactions of elemental forces creating water. Through them I am compelled to ponder rather than blindly believe or deny. I have acquired the humility necessary to admit that the truth of the universal condition and human life within it is far more then I can grasp and live by as of yet. But my own emotional and intellectual experiences have proven to me what it means to be in Plato's Cave and what the truth of Christianity offers a human being.

You find meaning in denial and I find it through humility making conscious contemplation possible.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:36 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 9:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:05 am
A "where" means a place. An "ability" is not a place.

I didn't say "where", I said "nowhere" which is actually a word in the dictionary

Yep, it is. So is "ability." And so is "grammar."

So show me the grammatical error you keep insisting I made. Don't just keep shooting your mouth off; prove something occasionally!

Note again...

One of the definitions of nowhere is....having no prospect of progress or success.

So where is the error.

I'm willing to correct it if you can identify it.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 9:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:36 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 9:45 am
I didn't say "where", I said "nowhere" which is actually a word in the dictionary

Yep, it is. So is "ability." And so is "grammar."

So show me the grammatical error you keep insisting I made.

Apparently you can't recognize it, even when I point it out. So I can't help you, there.