Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:20 pmI bid thee, what so troubles my Christian brothers that they should quarrel and fight as they do?

This Christian brother does what Jesus is said never to have done: I laugh.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:36 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:20 pm I bid thee, what so troubles my Christian brothers that they should quarrel and fight as they do?

My guess:

To keep the discussions as far removed from this...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God

I've discussed this here, at length, in other threads...and even made some references to it in this one. So that's not a very good theory.

2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian God?

I addressed this one too...with you personally, as I recall. You seem to have forgotten.

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God

I pointed out that you don't even know what you mean by "dasein." So if there's a problem with that, it's on you, for not knowing what you're talking about.

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and the Christian God

You mean my favourite types of questions? Anytime you like.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

Yep.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:23 pm This Christian brother does what Jesus is said never to have done: I laugh.

So let me get this straight: you don't think "Christian" is defined by what Christ did (and taught).

But you think that whether or not I'm a good Christian is defined by what Christ did.

Which way is it? Is Christ relevant to the definition of a Christian, or not?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:36 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:20 pm I bid thee, what so troubles my Christian brothers that they should quarrel and fight as they do?

My guess:

To keep the discussions as far removed from this...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God

I've discussed this here, at length, in other threads...and even made some references to it in this one. So that's not a very good theory.

He's discussed this. Now, where are the posts in which he actually provides us with a demonstrable proof of the Christian God's existence.

2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian God?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pmI addressed this one too...with you personally, as I recall. You seem to have forgotten.

He's addressed this too. Well, let him provide us with what he construes to be his best argument -- demonstrable proof? -- that of all the hundreds and hundreds of One True Religious Paths out there offering us immortality and salvation, his really, really, really, really is the One True Religious Path.

Note to Henry Quirk:

Weigh in please.

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pmI pointed out that you don't even know what you mean by "dasein." So if there's a problem with that, it's on you, for not knowing what you're talking about.

He's pointed that out. But where's the part where he demonstrates that his own childhood indoctrination, his own personal experiences predisposing him toward the Christian God have absolutely no bearing on his own existential leap of faith? How intellectually shallow does one have to be not to recognize the role that their own historical, cultural and personal experiences play in their religious beliefs?

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and the Christian God

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pmYou mean my favourite types of questions? Anytime you like.

How about his favorite answer to the question, "why did the Christian God, claimed by many to be omniscient and omnipotent, as well as loving, just and merciful, bring into existence an endless stream of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages?"

Look, there is no way that I expect him to suddenly acquire either the intellectual honesty or integrity to admit that his faith in the Christian God revolves mainly around a psychological defense mechanism that allows him to feel comforted and consoled given the human condition as it actually is. No way!

He simply has too much invested in soothing his soul through Christianity.

But don't get me wrong. I actually wish that he did possess the capacity to bring me up out of the philosophical hole I have dug myself down into. But he doesn't even come close.

Others here can take him seriously if they wish. No way in hell do I however.

Though here I am again having to admit that my own reaction to him -- and to all the other truly superficial objectivist ilk here -- is little more than my own subjective existential leap of faith rooted in dasein.

He's discussed this. Now, where are the posts in which he actually provides us with a demonstrable proof of the Christian God's existence.

He's addressed this too. Well, let him provide us with what he construes to be his best argument -- demonstrable proof? -- that of all the hundreds and hundreds of One True Religious Paths out there offering us immortality and salvation, his really, really, really, really is the One True Religious Path.

Why do people need to keep repeating for you, answers which they already gave you??

Larry wrote:

He's discussed this. Now, where are the posts in which he actually provides us with a demonstrable proof of the Christian God's existence.

He's addressed this too. Well, let him provide us with what he construes to be his best argument -- demonstrable proof? -- that of all the hundreds and hundreds of One True Religious Paths out there offering us immortality and salvation, his really, really, really, really is the One True Religious Path.

Why do people need to keep repeating for you, answers which they already gave you??

Of course! Make it all about me!!

Start here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/ ... tsfeatures

He had his Stooges, I have mine.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 9:13 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:23 pm This Christian brother does what Jesus is said never to have done: I laugh.

So let me get this straight: you don't think "Christian" is defined by what Christ did (and taught).

But you think that whether or not I'm a good Christian is defined by what Christ did.

Which way is it? Is Christ relevant to the definition of a Christian, or not?

As I have said a few times: I am here for my own purposes, and I will pursue what is interesting to me and what seems important and relevant. You are a wonderful and also a useful foil (contrast, antithesis) to have for the sort of conversation that I find relevant. So with that said I am going to continue on with those things that I find relevant and needful.

To be frank with you I think that I do not accept Jesus Christ, the person (I know he is described and viewed as a God-Man), as being an authority to which one can turn for any decisions. And when one examines what Christianity is, one sees that it is a blending of numerous different things. This is not something I object to. Also, I prefer to understand God not as a grumpy person up there surveilling the world, or as the psychotic, unbalanced Yahweh who thunders from a dark cloud, but rather I define God through logos. In this sense I depersonalize God. And the reason is because personalized God-conceptions have been and will always be problematic.

As you may have gathered, if you had been listening (and if you were capable of listening well), at this point is is very hard indeed for me to examine a religious story (the angelic announcement of Christ's birth, the mythology of Krishna and his pastimes, the life and struggle of Buddha etc.) and not only see it as a Story but to understand it as such and as a vehicle. The vehicle is the means through which those 'transcendentals' are concretized. Also, I see all stories (certainly those of Krishna and Buddha) as being tremendously embellished and 'constructed'. Similarly, I cannot but understand that the Gospels are similar constructions. I have no way to be certain what happened on the ground there in that time-frame. So what I do, all that I feel I can do, is to extract the core elements which the Story is designed (so to speak) to reveal.

Now, I have also said that when the religion of Jesus Christ was brought to Northern Europe (it came with the sword of course and as the religon of the conquerers and civilization's builders) those who received it, modified it. They transformed, in some degree, an other-worldly religion into more of a this-worldly religion. Well, there are a range of areas in which the religious philosophy was modified. So there are a few different elements here that I'd have to mention.

You describe God and Jesus Christ as if you are referring to God and Jesus existing on some other plane in some other-worldly beyond. You pray to Jesus, and those of your churches pray to Jesus, and (as I have said) godliness and grace is beamed down into you from on high. You have to focus on the manner in which you conceive your God as operating. And in this sense you have to define God's being. And you do so through a God Image. You hold this idea in your mind, in your imagination, and whatever it is that comes to you, comes to you through your visualization.

So there are, already, two obvious problematic areas. One, that you cannot know for sure what or who Jesus Christ really was because you were not there. And the other element is that whatever Jesus Christ/God is is a notion, a representation, a picture that you hold in your mind. There is also another and I think very important aspect here: that the Holy Ghost is literally a third person in the triune equation. This also tremendously complicates 'what Christianity is' because there is said to be a mobile and mercurial Spirit that roams around, that circulates like a wind, and that is deeply involved in the revelation of the mystery and also the evolution of the Christian concept.

So your fundamentalist's question: "So let me get this straight: you don't think "Christian" is defined by what Christ did (and taught)" is not really the area where I would place focus. I would not exclude the Gospel picture of Jesus though. However, there is a deep mystery (and a mystery school) associated with the resurrected Jesus and that longish period of time he is said to have spent with his disciples. And though I view that description as well as a Picture, still it opens up the possibility that there are other dimensions of teaching, always a part of Christianity, but pushed to the side or pushed down and away.

But you think that whether or not I'm a good Christian is defined by what Christ did.

What I think about you and also the general-you of many Christians is summed-up with:

The advocates of Christianity squander their energies in the mere preservation of what has come down to them, with no thought of building on to their house and making it roomier. Stagnation in these matters is threatened in the long run with a lethal end.

The ethical teachings of Christianity, of Catholicism, the social teaching, and many of the theological doctrines, are to my mind first-rate. But these are theological teaching that have been worked and in this sense born through centuries of meditation and intellectual work. They are there. Anyone can access this information in the catechetic sense. But they don't of course because, for different reasons, and though various causes, the God-image has been shattered.

And then there are assholes who do a tremendous amount of harm while asserting, and sincerely believing, that they are 'doing good' and 'doing the Work of the Lord'. Where do we fit you in here Immanuel? Are you so fragile that you cannot subject yourself to critical analysis and also introspection?

Which way is it? Is Christ relevant to the definition of a Christian, or not?

What do you wish to believe that I'd say when, here, I have explained a great deal of what I think on the issue but suspect that you will sort of bend it to your own purposes?

Of course! Make it all about me!!

Seriously. You take no responsibility for your actions.

Then you wonder why people call you a troll and want to ban you.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 9:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:36 pm

My guess:

To keep the discussions as far removed from this...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God

I've discussed this here, at length, in other threads...and even made some references to it in this one. So that's not a very good theory.

...where are the posts...

Go and look. There are some in this very thread, and lots elsewhere. You're just late on the scene and not up to speed.

2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why the Christian God?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pmI addressed this one too...with you personally, as I recall. You seem to have forgotten.

He's addressed this too.

Yep. Why don't you tell us what you remember, and we'll fill in the holes in your knowledge.

I'll warrant you don't remember a thing. It's hard to, when you have fingers in both ears.

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pmI pointed out that you don't even know what you mean by "dasein." So if there's a problem with that, it's on you, for not knowing what you're talking about.

He's pointed that out.

Yep. But you can fix it.

Define "dasein." Your version. You won't. You already repeatedly refused.

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and the Christian God

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:51 pmYou mean my favourite types of questions? Anytime you like.

How about his favorite answer to the question, "why did the Christian God bring into existence...earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical afflictions and extinction events...

He didn't. We did. But we talked about this before, earlier in this thread...once again, you were on a nap, I guess.

...making life on Earth a living hell

Oh, the melodrama!

Yes, life is nothing but Hell. You got that right. Yep. Sure; whatever you say. There are no good things on Earth.

Wow, your life's no fun at all.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 10:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 9:13 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 8:23 pm This Christian brother does what Jesus is said never to have done: I laugh.

So let me get this straight: you don't think "Christian" is defined by what Christ did (and taught).

But you think that whether or not I'm a good Christian is defined by what Christ did.

Which way is it? Is Christ relevant to the definition of a Christian, or not?

As I have said a few times: I am here for my own purposes, and I will pursue what is interesting to me and what seems important and relevant.

Great. Now, answer the question.

Which way is it: is Christ relevant to the definition? You've said both, as indicated above.

To be frank with you I think that I do not accept Jesus Christ, the person (I know he is described and viewed as a God-Man), as being an authority to which one can turn for any decisions.

That's a different question from the one about how one defines what "Christian" is. We can leave that to later.

The first thing is to have some idea of what it is we're looking for. And so far, you've only contradicted yourself on that. You can't have it both ways: if you have no definition of Christian involving Christ, neither I nor anyone else can be indicted as a Christian for having failed to represent Him. But if we can, then you've made Christ central to the definition of Christianity...which is exactly what I was saying you should have been doing all along.

But you think that whether or not I'm a good Christian is defined by what Christ did.

What I think about you and also the general-you of many Christians is summed-up with:

Where do we fit you in here Immanuel? Are you so fragile that you cannot subject yourself to critical analysis and also introspection?

So amusing.

The man with no uncontradictory definition of "Christian" wants to tell me about being critical and analytical, as well as how to be the kind of Christian he doesn't know how to recognize.

I don't know where to start with that.

Which way is it? Is Christ relevant to the definition of a Christian, or not?

What do you wish to believe that I'd say...

Just something in which you aren't contradicting yourself. That'd be nice.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 11:49 pm

AJ wrote:
So the easiest way for you to understand this would be to take the example of a 'former Democrat' (speaking of the American scene) who in a process of discovery and realization turns toward so-called 'conservative principles' in some light degree, possibly and for example those that Bork outlined in his book Slouching Toward Gomorrah. That person, to complete this shift, may merely reassign himself into a different political party and work politically, socially and intellectually (i.e. in his reading or the news he reads/watches). There may also be a 'return to church-going' as part of this processes. That is, a return to formerly established conservatism of a sort. Nothing more may occur. And indeed this is, sort of in any case, what the Jordan Petersons and Dave Rubins have done. (Peterson goes a bit, or even quite a bit further, insofar as he does outline internal processes -- psycho-spiritual as it might be called).

And is that where you are, too? Are you a "red-pilled" ex-Democrat, as they say?

The example I presented to you, above, was for other purposes (see that post).

Where I stand in the political domain can be explained better by explaining what I do. I am aware and I think more aware than many of many different trends that are going on in the sociological world which is the ground or the platform upon which one's politics is constructed. So one of the most important things to notice is that over the last, what, 10 years (?) there has come out of the woodwork a whole new dissident discourse bound up with dissident right-leaning ideas. These have welled to the surface and they come, often, from submerged areas.

You are well aware of the presence and influence of the Radical Left but this pole also has to be mentioned in the context of politics. Those who are *of the radical left* (I would gather) must have some sort of metaphysical platform, mustn't they? and yet what it is is not very clear to me. There are radical left Christians (Democratic Socialists, etc.) but this new radicalism has a different base. Is it sheer neo-Marxianism? Is it the absence of any concrete metaphysics? Is it strictly anti-Christian and does it depend on that pole in order to empower itself as-against it? Is it just lawlessness and also different forms of desire? (as in sexual desire) that drive and empower these people? I can't make it out.

But in my own case I definitely tend in the direction of a structured right-tending politics. Yet I also appreciate, and very much so, the Classical Liberal posture as revealed, say, by Isaiah Berlin.

But turning back to what I do as a way to define my political stance, what I do is observe, listen, research, read lots of different titles, and simply try to understand what motivates people.

I thought that it might be interesting to mention here Lauren Witzke. Here is an interview by Lana Lokteff (an infamous figure on the Dissident Right, banned, demonetized, investigated, hounded) who I admire a great deal. The interesting thing is that Lauren Witzke is a dedicated Christian and she talks about her faith in Jesus as having saved her life. She went from Evangelical Christianity to finally wind up in Orthodox Christianity (a progression that makes a great deal of sense to me). And Lana Lokteff was a Christian in her early days but defines herself as a Pagan.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 10:21 pmWhich way is it: is Christ relevant to the definition? You've said both, as indicated above.

I operate within more fluid predicates. This goes back to conversations we had years ago in PM.

If I have said both then there you will find your *answer* though, obviously, it does not satisfy you.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 10:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 11:49 pm And is that where you are, too? Are you a "red-pilled" ex-Democrat, as they say?

The example I presented to you, above, was for other purposes (see that post).

I was asking because of your mention of people like Rubins and Peterson, as well as Bork and Weaver. There's not much in any of them that the New Left would appreciate. And if you regard your roots as is California radicalism, then that would be quite a move in the centrist direction to end up near where those folks are.

...dissident right-leaning ideas. You are well aware of the presence and influence of the Radical Left but this pole also has to be mentioned in the context of politics.

It's certainly rising.

What's interesting is how many small "l" liberals and other centrist-leftists are starting to realize that the large-"L" Left has left them behind and become increasingly drawn to radical Marxist politics. I would put somebody like Rubin or Haidt or even McWhorter in this camp...nice leftists for whom the Left has become far too radical.

Those who are *of the radical left* (I would gather) must have some sort of metaphysical platform, mustn't they? and yet what it is is not very clear to me.

James Lindsay says, and I think he's totally right, it's neo-Marxism. So their "metaphysics" are premised in a blind faith in dialectic and a blind faith that "history" has its own desirable teleological trajectory. I've read quite a bit of their stuff, and the Leftists' core theorists claim that the telos or goal of history cannot even be spoken of in advance of its arrival, so you can't even ask them, "Where does all this anger and destruction end up?" They don't know, and insist nobody can know, and yet say it's bound to be good.

But in my own case I definitely tend in the direction of a structured right-tending politics. Yet I also appreciate, and very much so, the Classical Liberal posture as revealed, say, by Isaiah Berlin.

The center left is now considered part of the "radical right," by the hard Leftists. So I guess that puts you on the right, whether you want to be or not. They don't seem to want to give anybody a choice.


P.S. -- Now, this is better. Now we're talking.

P.S. -- Now, this is better. Now we're talking.

You seem to have resolved to get over your ridiculous, pouty sensitivity is how I'd put it. Nothing at all has changed on my end. You've made a change on yours and, as long as it lasts, I commend you. Be strong!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 11:27 pm

P.S. -- Now, this is better. Now we're talking.

You seem to have resolved to get over your ridiculous, pouty sensitivity is how I'd put it. Nothing at all has changed on my end. You've made a change on yours and, as long as it lasts, I commend you. Be strong!

Heh. Wow. Can't take a win, eh?

Well, I'll let you imagine whatever you want. It's no skin off my nose.