Christianity

[Belinda]

Pastor Wiola: (Laughing) Oh, goodness me, parishioner Bjorn aGus, you are quite the joker. Of course, the aim is not to add but to subtract.

Well indeed, keeping all those different gods in ancient Greece and Rome in check, and more urgently their followers, was like herding cats. How much simpler if everyone worshipped the same god?

Bjorn aGus: And the paradox?

Yawn.

The Good Shepherd is a mythical narrative that shows how even stroppy polytheists can with advantage to all be herded.

[uwot]

The Good Shepherd is a mythical narrative that shows how even stroppy polytheists can with advantage to all be herded.

Well, the Church recognised the range of interests it needed to cater for, so instead of minor deities they came up with saints which now rival in number the gods of any polytheistic religion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I was directed to this thread in late April, and finally finished reading it today, in full, other than that, on rare occasion, I skimmed or skipped posts to which it didn't seem worth paying attention.

It was quite the mammoth undertaking. Biblical, even.

I had thought that, after all that reading, I would contribute meaningfully to the discussion/debate. When it came time to log in though, I thought to myself, "Well, why don't you have a little look back on your past - now ancient! - involvement on this forum before making any putatively meaningful contribution to this thread?"

Hello there Harry hope all is well. It is indeed impressive that you read the entire thread. However, and based on what you have said so far, and the dialog you submitted, I do not get the impression that you have grasped the nature of the problem.

The place to start, and here I mean the place for all of us to start, the only possible beginning point, is with the solid and undeniable truth that it has come about (and this is true in your own case) that we can no longer 'believe'. And when we try, say, to 'believe' we do so through imposing simulacra of belief. If you examine and think-through what I suggest here I believe you will recognize that it is true.

The prime example of 'simulacra of belief' is, for our purposes, Immanuel Can. In him the 'edifice' of belief is a forced contraption of what it originally was. It is even quite possible that he does not, really, 'believe' but contrives a whole internet personality as an 'enactment'. His 'belief' is expressed through a contrived certainty and, in the end, reduces to "you will soon be in Hell'. That's it! It has no other moving part. Immanuel Can is just as much a postmodern creature as we are such creatures: we who exist in a state where we cannot believe (in the former structure, the former story).

This is not a minor problem, it is a vast problem. And my assertion is that *we* have not fully seen the dimension of this problem. What it means, what it has meant, what very strange effects it has on our culture and as well on our personalities and how we act.

The only way (that I can tell) to have meaningful interchange is to identify the real problem. Then to talk about it honestly.

Go ahead Harry -- start with yourself!

I would make one suggestion, direct but as always friendly: identify the problem. I do not believe that you have in any subtantial sense got to the essence of what differences pertain between my perspective (which has evolved but more properly been solidified through involvement in this thread and principally through interaction with Immanuel) and that of Lacewing. I hope that you recognize that Lacewing did not and does not have a *position* per se but rather a reactive stance -- and this is a significant difference.

I will further say that if you were able to see more clearly the dramatic problem that we all face (a social, ideological and cultural we) your dialogue might have had some interesting force in it. As it is it is merely 'cute' and substantially vacuous.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, the Church recognised the range of interests it needed to cater for, so instead of minor deities they came up with saints which now rival in number the gods of any polytheistic religion.

This is not a fair and accurate understanding of how the 'saints' are understood within Catholicism. The notion of saints that can be, or are, helpers of men in this middle world, is a logical assertion giving the metaphysics the Church defines. A saint is now outside of the realm of the middle world, and in the heavenly world, and has 'overcome' everything that those in the middle world still struggle with. Thus 'the Church triumphant'. Saints are not seen as 'gods' and they are dependent on God. All that they can do (according to Church doctrine) is pray for those who still struggle. They might also be able to intervene but that would happen only through their prayers. Only an angel can intervene in middle-world affairs and only if that intervention is ordained by God.

The idea of the efficacy of a 'saint' is something along the lines of being able to rely on a friend and a friendly helper.

I know how your views function and that for all of this you have nothing but sheer contempt and my only interest is in correcting what is an inaccurate assessment on your part. A system must be understood for what it is and according to its own terms. And the Christian/Catholic system is en entire but holistic edifice.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I agree. This long thread has not really been productive and with no idea how it could become productive.

Let's consider the issue of 'productivity'. My assertion? It weaves in and out of the proper identification of the real issues. In that sense it is 'inane'. But because it is inane, and because the real problem cannot be identified and talked about (honestly as I say) nevertheless there is a strange production. But, there is no one -- no sober, aware analyst, no citizen of our present -- who can see the full problem in its entire dimension.

Except myself of course, as all can plainly see. But the sheep are rebellious! Oh how they kick back against The Truth!

For this reason perspectives break-down into what I have called 'bickering'. People speak with a sort of impassioned subjectivity from within private perspectives ('cages' is the metaphor that Philip Rieff employs) that only fractionally correspond to the perspectives of a (subjective) neighbor. In these perspectives, in these cages, people are lost to one another! It is, I suggest, evidence of a veritable loneliness. And that separation, the effect of atomization, is a substantial cause for all manner of different angst.

Of course no one could propose a 'unifying motion'! Because there is no genuine unification in a corporate, cultural sense. The guiding, the parameter-providing, the paradigmatic structure of a shared cultural view no longer exists -- except as I suggest as contrived simulacra.

We can run to such simulacrum-structures and we can attempt to cobble them back together (each has come apart in unique ways) like the burrow-rodent in a Kafka story, but I suggest that we cannot honestly live in them. Put another way they provide enough sufficiency to offer some protection -- but in no sense is there enough shared agreement for any shattered belief to become a rallying point.

So then, all the minor rallying-points -- again these are contingencies and temporal strategies -- can be examined with benefit. But my suggestion is that they will all be seen as half-hearted attempts to construct what cannot be honestly constructed.

Still I am right on the verge of beginning my World Mission and I am taking donations. Please, people, don't be cheap! I desperately need a Gulfstream G550.



Meanwhile some inspirational music to get the wallets open and the funds flowing!

[uwot]

Well, the Church recognised the range of interests it needed to cater for, so instead of minor deities they came up with saints which now rival in number the gods of any polytheistic religion.

This is not a fair and accurate understanding of how the 'saints' are understood within Catholicism.

Gus, can you not appreciate that how saints are understood within Catholicism is different to how Catholics understand saints? If you can get your head around that, you might also appreciate how subtle the founders of christianity were.

[Alexis Jacobi]

... that how saints are understood within Catholicism is different to how Catholics understand saints?

Your point was not lost on me. In this sense the Cult of Saints might have something in common with traditional ancestor worship. I am aware that still, today, some people believe that their ancestors intervene in different ways in their life.

Here is an interesting page.

[bobmax]

The place to start, and here I mean the place for all of us to start, the only possible beginning point, is with the solid and undeniable truth that it has come about (and this is true in your own case) that we can no longer 'believe'. And when we try, say, to 'believe' we do so through imposing simulacra of belief. If you examine and think-through what I suggest here I believe you will recognize that it is true.

Yes, the gods have fled.

However, what has really been lost?
All those beliefs, which are almost no longer there, were in fact superstitions.

Our progress in the knowledge of the world has gradually made many beliefs vanish. But they were only superstitions.

Faith, true faith, has not been affected at all.

We may not be aware of it, but the only authentic faith is faith in the Truth.

Truth that appears as Nothing, but in which it is essential to have faith.

Christianity may have a rebirth, but it should renounce all its dogmas.
And turn to its own spiritual heart.
Lovingly guarded by the Mystic.

It would be an epochal transition, but this is now needed, I am sure.

[uwot]

... that how saints are understood within Catholicism is different to how Catholics understand saints?

Your point was not lost on me. In this sense the Cult of Saints might have something in common with traditional ancestor worship.

Well, one thing they have in common is numbers; there are more saints and ancestors than there are fathers

I am aware that still, today, some people believe that their ancestors intervene in different ways in their life.

Let them. Where is the harm?

Here is an interesting page.

It is an interesting page and it would have been a splendid exhibition to go to 16 years ago had I been in LA at the time. Yeah, christian iconography is beautiful and fascinating. I have a Madonna and child triptych above my telly as I watch the Wimbledon final and respond to you.

[Nick_A]

I agree. This long thread has not really been productive and with no idea how it could become productive.

Let's consider the issue of 'productivity'. My assertion? It weaves in and out of the proper identification of the real issues. In that sense it is 'inane'. But because it is inane, and because the real problem cannot be identified and talked about (honestly as I say) nevertheless there is a strange production. But, there is no one -- no sober, aware analyst, no citizen of our present -- who can see the full problem in its entire dimension.

Except myself of course, as all can plainly see. But the sheep are rebellious! Oh how they kick back against The Truth!

For this reason perspectives break-down into what I have called 'bickering'. People speak with a sort of impassioned subjectivity from within private perspectives ('cages' is the metaphor that Philip Rieff employs) that only fractionally correspond to the perspectives of a (subjective) neighbor. In these perspectives, in these cages, people are lost to one another! It is, I suggest, evidence of a veritable loneliness. And that separation, the effect of atomization, is a substantial cause for all manner of different angst.

Of course no one could propose a 'unifying motion'! Because there is no genuine unification in a corporate, cultural sense. The guiding, the parameter-providing, the paradigmatic structure of a shared cultural view no longer exists -- except as I suggest as contrived simulacra.

We can run to such simulacrum-structures and we can attempt to cobble them back together (each has come apart in unique ways) like the burrow-rodent in a Kafka story, but I suggest that we cannot honestly live in them. Put another way they provide enough sufficiency to offer some protection -- but in no sense is there enough shared agreement for any shattered belief to become a rallying point.

So then, all the minor rallying-points -- again these are contingencies and temporal strategies -- can be examined with benefit. But my suggestion is that they will all be seen as half-hearted attempts to construct what cannot be honestly constructed.

Still I am right on the verge of beginning my World Mission and I am taking donations. Please, people, don't be cheap! I desperately need a Gulfstream G550.



Meanwhile some inspirational music to get the wallets open and the funds flowing!

There is no unifying motion because secularism is incapable of feeling the reality of the human condition. That is why I initiated the thread "Is World Peace Possible." It will bomb since only a few have verified reality through self knowledge. That is why humanity as a whole cannot learn by experience and can only be helped by receiving grace.

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... ead#unread

[uwot]

...secularism is incapable of feeling the reality of the human condition.

You don't know that. Why is your feeling of reality more real than mine?

[Nick_A]

...secularism is incapable of feeling the reality of the human condition.

You don't know that. Why is your feeling of reality more real than mine?

Read the OP of the thread. If you can admit that you are incapable of sustained impartial attention and deny its value as opposed to directed attention, you may understand why it is so.

[henry quirk]

Is World Peace Possible(?)

Nick, I thought you were gonna start that one up here.

[uwot]

If you can admit that you are incapable of sustained impartial attention...

Is that something you can admit to?

[Nick_A]

If you can admit that you are incapable of sustained impartial attention...

Is that something you can admit to?

Yes. My advantage is that I have verified it and realize the value of what has been lost and make efforts to acquire it