Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Belinda wrote: You cannot be both a follower of Jesus and also a conservative.

If you suppose that, you don't know what a "conservative" is, I would think. It isn't a religious category, but rather a vague orientation to the past, to an unspecifiable set of possible "traditions" or "legacies" in civilizational history. It's another extremely broad generalization, and to suppose it's impossible to be within that generalization and Christian at the same time would need proving.

At first blush it would seem to me that original Christianity must be described as a radical movement. It was resisted as such and seen as subversive to the established order and was repressed for that reason. It was radical as well because it demanded a substantial ethical change which, in those early days, was overseen (policed even) by a hierarchy of Christian persons. So at that point it could hardly be described as 'conservative' insofar as it was not interested in conserving but in transforming.

Now however -- and making vast leaps over historical periods -- Christian metaphysics, even when rather murky and non-specified, is definitely associated with social Conservatism. It is often described as backward and retrograde if it is not also described as a mental illness.

When people get nervous and unsettled about the powers and processes (strains of radical ideation) that are undermining all that was once understood to be solid and non-controversial, they naturally turn back to structures and structuralism that can, as they hope, act as an 'anchor'. The winds of change, the currents of change which have been set in motion by strains of ideas (or are these less ideas and more emoted impulses? I am unsure) pull at all such 'anchors'. And thus to define an 'anchor' is to define something conservative. You have to establish definitions as to what is being 'conserved' (and why).

The figure of Jesus Christ thus appears on both sides of the equation under consideration. In India today (I am not versed in the Christianization of India and know just a bit) the intrusion of the Christian form into Indian culture is not a manifestation of 'traditionalism' necessarily, but a manifestation of radicalism. To indoctrinate people in a new and different way of understanding metaphysics, seeing social hierarchies, power-relations and much else. So how could it not be described as 'radicalism' once again? and as it was (more or less) originally?

Real 'conservatism' (if you-all will permit the italic emphasis) can only be defined through different forms of traditionalism. In any case I cannot see how a conservatism would not be traditionalist in one degree or another. And if traditionalism is defined as an acceptable category it is not 'vague' necessarily, though it could be romantic and romanticism is normally defined) but is always grounded in strong definitions. So when Conservatism of a grounded and traditionalist sort defines itself through hard and strict definitions it then becomes a form of traditional radicalism -- if radicalism is taken in its original sense.

[Middle English, of a root, from Late Latin rādīcālis, having roots, from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root; see wrād- in Indo-European roots.]

[Belinda]

I still feel I belong spiritually with a particular congregation of the Church of Scotland. It was there and from my family I learned universalization. Therefore my feeling of European identity is not a permanent part of my identity but a springboard to larger identities.

Some conservative principles are simply wrong by virtue of universalization. Samaritans were not Jews. You cannot be both a follower of Jesus and also a conservative.

Well it is a curious thing, but somewhat alarming and unsettling, to think of Americanism as being empowered by a twist on Universalism. (Manifest destiny, the American Way understood to be obviously right and good, the penetration of Americanism everywhere, etc).

I also think a substantial defect can be noticed within Christianity itself when it expresses itself as universal idealism. Universalism, ultimately, must necessarily destroy Particularism (I am capitalizing simply for accent and for no other reason). Is it possible to define a Christian particularism? That is, an exclusive Christianity? (People are making this effort and I could cite a few sources).

But be that as it may I would only suggest that there is a movement afoot which seeks to oppose Universalization. I am not precisely sure how you use the term and I am guessing to some degree but since my endeavor is to research and understand the gamut of ideas that are operating today I can say with certainly that there is a sound and coherent argument against it. And I also have to say that there is one against Christian universalism which is seen not as a 'good thing' but as a 'destructive thing'. (My view takes both into consideration).

Take Pierre Krebs Fighting for the Essence (here reviewed by Tomislav Sunic on Counter-Currents). Sunić writes:

Krebs’ book actually urges the reader to decolonise his mindset, purging from it the images and concepts that have been contaminating White European brains over the last two millennia, and which resulted in a distorted perception of objective reality and a perverse form of White identity. In a word, this book can be described as an epistemological primer for those looking not just for the reasons behind the ongoing decadence in Europe and America, but also for those interested in the root causes of that decadence. Before combating the vileness of the present system, a modern man or woman of European extraction must make an effort to critically examine the origins of the founding myths of that system. Why waste time on futile talk about the ‘dying White race’, ‘the troubles of Europe’, ‘the dictatorship of the ideology of comfort’, or the ‘immigration disaster’ if the heart of the problem is wilfully ignored? In doing so, one only cures the symptoms of the disease while failing to address its causes.

Here is the blurb for Kreb's book Fighting for the Essence. (I do realize this is highly controversial material and that Counter-Currents deals in extremely radical ideas).

Dr. Krebs offers a devastating critique of multiculturalism, showing that although it claims to be the watchman of racial and cultural diversity, it is actually destructive to both, as it denies the significance of racial differences altogether. He traces its origins to the legacy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and shows how this has developed into many of the most powerful tools of liberalism of our times. These are serving the interests of the global marketplace by turning all of humanity into compliant consumers. Those who endorse multiculturalism are, in fact, the enemies of all traditional culture. Dr. Krebs also takes issue with the use of the term 'West' to describe our culture, which he sees as an effort to deprive the various European cultures which comprise it of their unique characters and histories. This will lead to their replacement by a grey conformity divorced from any authentic roots, as well as a value system that is frequently used as a weapon against those nations which refuse to share them. This assault is not limited to Europe, but is something that is going on in every corner of the globe. Dr. Krebs says that it is time for all those who believe in the worthiness of their heritage and unique ethnic identity to return to the wellsprings of their peoples, and defend what is rightfully theirs. With a deeper trench between the camps of multiculturalism and traditional culture being dug all the time, this is the conflict that will define the 21st century. Drawing examples from many of the most notable contributors to science, philosophy and religion, Dr. Krebs illustrates a truth that is difficult to deny. Anyone who heeds his warning will find it impossible not to accept his challenge to take sides in the ongoing struggle against universal conformity.

The term universalization is not my invention and I dislike it as a word however it seems to be the only term for the idea Jesus expressed in his parable of The Good Samaritan.

Many respected and effective charities follow the ethic embedded in The Good Samaritan parable, and not all the charity workers are Christians.

I could avoid taking sides with Dr Krebs and his right-wing interpretation of man's recent past.I balance my reading between respectable right wing and respectable left wing interpretations. I do not even know how respectable Dr Krebs is.

What do mean "universal conformity"? Individualism and individuality remains a high value in all free countries. The best of modern liberal education is based on the ethic of individualism not conformity. Lefties believe the state should ensure that all citizens regardless of ethnicity, gender, sex, or social class receive the best liberal education from pre-school to tertiary.

Racial differences, which I called ethnicity, are a component of the individual person as a subject of experience. (I have listed some other components above).Individual subjectivity is the necessary basis for learning as it forms the basis for comparisons and contrasts with others' subjective selves.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I could avoid taking sides with Dr Krebs and his right-wing interpretation of man's recent past. I balance my reading between respectable right wing and respectable left wing interpretations. I do not even know how respectable Dr Krebs is.

He is clearly a reactionary: he is in reaction against what the liberal order has created. Tomislav Sunić has used the term 'liberal rot' to describe aspects of the outcome of ultra- or hyper-liberalism. Myself, I agree that there is such a thing ('liberal rot'). But I am puzzled as to how it could be combatted. I tend to the position that the present order, with myriad loco-beans permutations, will and can only proceed on until reactive forces act. And this has not ever been pretty. I do not create the circumstances on-going and nothing (or infinitesimally little) that I can say or write about it could change the present trajectory. So I am content (and safe) in my position as a) researcher and b) observer.

So Krebs' critique, and his general orientation, are rooted in idea-sets that would not -- could not -- be accepted as having any solid validity -- that is in the common dispensation. They would be -- must be, could only be -- seen as corrupt, misguided, retrograde but also 'wrong' and then eventually 'evil'. Therefore I think you could safely place him in the non-respectable category.

As I said I am rereading Huxley's Proper Studies. Huxley could be said to hold to a similarly oriented idea-set as Krebs. Huxley's analysis fits into 'interwar' ideas that were circulating. But Huxley resolved his problematic assertions by taking mescaline and staring at the mystic patterns in his jeans ... then moved to California!

I am still waiting for Dubious to post excerpts from his 'trip diary'! (No poetry of course). But I expect that Atto might have a go at it as well. Unless he has taken my advice and found himself a Yiddish mama.

We can only hope & pray.

[Immanuel Can]

At first blush it would seem to me that original Christianity must be described as a radical movement.

Only in the completely vacuous sense that everything is "radical", when it's new. I doubt that what B. was alleging was that Christianity was "radical for First Century Galilee." But you can play that card if you want, I guess. It just seems a bit ridiculous.

I think her claim was that Christianity is inherently Left, by today's standards. But she can clarify that.

Now however -- and making vast leaps over historical periods -- Christian metaphysics, even when rather murky and non-specified, is definitely associated with social Conservatism.

Right. So if she has anything in mind that you and I would call "conservative," then it would on her to show that by comparison to, say, modern Leftism, Christianity was inherently sympathetic to the Left.

I don't think she can pull that one off. I'd love to see her try, though.

[Alexis Jacobi]

At first blush it would seem to me that original Christianity must be described as a radical movement.

Only in the completely vacuous sense that everything is "radical", when it's new. I doubt that what B. was alleging was that Christianity was "radical for First Century Galilee." But you can play that card if you want, I guess. It just seems a bit ridiculous.

Immanuel wishes to assert that my designation of original Christianity as a 'radical' movement is vacuous since, as he asserts, all new movements are radical in this or in some similar sense. However, I think that early and original Christianity was indeed radical in many other senses and these cannot be denied. So the assertion of vacuousness seems quite over the top. It surprises me tremendously that Immanuel wishes to haggle over such a point as this. It is foundational to Christianity that its will and energy upsets conventionalities. And usually -- more often than not -- those who encounter the NT when they are free to read and interpret on their own tended to interpret it as promoting radical action.

And in a sense this is repeated today when holding to strict Christian ethics has become a form of radicalism.

There are many different reasons why Christian ethics were transformative and confrontative to 'established systems' which, logically, would need to be described as 'conservative'. The ethics of the Sermon of the Mount are intensely radical. The very idea that a New God has appeared yet within a specific temporal period (that is, the now of that time; "the day before yesterday") and asserts that He-It is the only real god and all other gods are 'false' and 'evil' is clearly an extremely radical idea. There is no way to represent it otherwise. There is no point in belaboring this point. When one considers, for another example, what 'taking the Christian cure' entailed it can only be described as radical relationally.

Alexis Jacobi hath spoken. Selah.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But you can play that card if you want

The Wolf came in, I got my cards, we sat down for a game
I cut my deck to the Queen of Spades, but the cards were all the same
Don't murder me, I beg of you, don't murder me
Please, don't murder me.
Don't murder me.[/quote]

[Immanuel Can]

At first blush it would seem to me that original Christianity must be described as a radical movement.

Only in the completely vacuous sense that everything is "radical", when it's new. I doubt that what B. was alleging was that Christianity was "radical for First Century Galilee." But you can play that card if you want, I guess. It just seems a bit ridiculous.

Immanuel wishes to assert that my designation of original Christianity as a 'radical' movement is vacuous since, as he asserts, all new movements are radical in this or in some similar sense.

Was I unclear, somehow? And who are your talking to?

...those who encounter the NT when they are free to read and interpret on their own tended to interpret it as promoting radical action.

Well, then they're not very bright. What "radical action" means today (usually stupid, extreme, Leftist and political) and what Christianity is about are pretty different. If they don't notice that, then maybe they should go back to sleep.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, then they're not very bright. What "radical action" means today (usually stupid, extreme, Leftist and political) and what Christianity is about are pretty different. If they don't notice that, then maybe they should go back to sleep.

Naturally and given my bent I find these *declarations* interesting. That is to feel that one can say, definitively, who is unbright and thus who is bright. I have to admit my substantial confusion on this question. And further who is 'stupid' and who is 'extreme' when the full political, economic and social picture is considered judiciously.

Belinda wrote: Many respected and effective charities follow the ethic embedded in The Good Samaritan parable, and not all the charity workers are Christians.

Belinda referred to the Samaritan parable. I am unsure if some who read here are aware that that parable has been the focus of hermeneutical consideration for quite some time. It does, at least in one sense, encompass a vital aspect of the Christian ethic as admonition. So let me try to cut to the chase here. The man who finds the victim of a robbery along the road chooses to 'get involved' and takes his involvement to the limit: he sets him up in an inn and leaves funds to contribute to his recovery. It is a parable of a substantial commitment.

Personally, I think that the designations Left/Right are false designations. They do not function any longer and should be put aside. Once a policy or a statement of commitment is assigned to the Left or the Right it is taken out of a context in which it could be considered independently.

I am also quite uncertain how this *sleep* referred to is defined. Who's asleep and who is awake? What will the awake person do?

Along these lines I happened to listen to what I thought was a very worthwhile interview with Noam Chomsky. I submit it for general consideration. He does not merely imply but directly states what 'being awake' is according to his view (and naturally his predicates). As I watched the interview I wondered to what degree his value-assertions would be considered Christian or anti-Christian? That is if the Good Samaritan parable is considered as a vital ethical admonition.

What does 'being awake' mean in our present? And what does 'being asleep' mean?

[Alexis Jacobi]

And who are your talking to?

Certainly someone, somewhere!

[Immanuel Can]

Belinda wrote: Many respected and effective charities follow the ethic embedded in The Good Samaritan parable, and not all the charity workers are Christians.

Belinda needs to read this article: https://apologetics.org/resources/artic ... needs-god/

Note that it is not a Christian article, but one by an Atheist writing in the London Times.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Belinda please note: Immanuel has posted an article he believes you need to read (by an atheist).

[Phil8659]

Really? Christ came to teach Christianity? A self-referential fallacy?

I would imagine, that if one is claiming to be a Christian, that they would try to learn what Christ was teaching, and try to teach the same thing.
Those who make Christ a lame name, are not Christians, by any so called Definition.

Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

And this is not the only time the statement in the Book, you will find a similar one in Revelation.

Every religion, derived from the Bible, preach lies. Clear and blatant lies, most people do not even study the Book. The Book tells you to learn judgment, not doctrines, not religions, but judgment.
So, is it even possible for the provably illiterate to know judgment?
This forum is a dumpster of illiterate people, who do not know a thing about grammar, in fact, to this day, there is not even one correct grammar book on the entire planet.
This is a planet of simple minded hypocrites.

[henry quirk]

This forum is a dumpster of illiterate people

Still turnin' heads with that there sweet talk.

[Phil8659]

This forum is a dumpster of illiterate people

Still turnin' heads with that there sweet talk.

Well, then, instead of looking around for someone to save you, explain it to everyone, what is the foundation of every possible system of information processing and how is it accomplished.

[Nick_A]

You and I C are alike in your tendency to classify. But what of those whose ideas cannot be classified.

Ideas that "cannot be classified" are exceedingly rare, Nick. Human civilization has been around a long, long time...truly unique ideas are exceedingly rare, as a consequence. Almost anything anybody thinks can be compared to something previous, or put into some category of similar things.

That doesn't have to be a dismissive exercise: it can be away of putting those ideas in their proper context, and giving them credit for having some pedigree rather than being hare-brained neologisms.

What I hear from you is not, in my experience, unknown. It reproduces patterns we have seen before. But it is not worthless, for all that. Rather, maybe you're tapping into some current of belief that has come before. I think you are: and the fact that you cite others as sources also suggests I'm right about that. But whether or not your ideas are good does not depend on them being new, utterly original, or unseen in previous history.

Very little, then, of anyone's ideas "cannot be classified": and often, that which cannot be is "unclassifiable" because it's incoherent or wrong-headed, not because it's fresh, startling or insightful.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

There are some who can take opposing classified partial truths and experience them consciously within the higher perspective of one law. Of course Jesus was capable of it and why he understood the blindness of the fallen human condition. He didn't give speeches but his energy was of such a quality that he could awaken the Apostles to experience a higher conscious perspective which the seed of the soul was attracted to. That is why they could drop everything to follow him.

How many in modern times can transcend classification to intuit the law or laws reason normal for a higher conscious perspective can be brought under?