On the Nature of Things | Forum

Marcus wrote:

Ibrahim wrote:I don't see how your claim is correct here at all. Anybody can repent and seek forgiveness from Jesus/God at any time, correct? Regardless of what they may have done up to that point.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment . ."

—from the Epistle to the Hebrews

You're ducking the question. Is not the option to repent always available?

Torchwood wrote:Not a new theme for David - he stated it much more eloquently the previous time he discovered Japan.

Of course the beautiful is not the good - just look at the Italian renaissance, the high point of Western visual art, when you could literally get away with murder as long as you did it with style. But far more evil has been generated by deeply moral persons with a flawed morality, who thought it was crucial for the good of all to burn heretics, keep slaves, women and the lower orders in their place, eliminate the bourgeois, slay the infidel - and kill Jews. Zealous intolerant morality does of course have some Abrahamic roots...

That beauty and good do not always, or perhaps not even often, coincide was something the German Existentialists really hammered home as a reaction to early 19th century Romanticism.

Ibrahim wrote:

Marcus wrote:

Ibrahim wrote:I don't see how your claim is correct here at all. Anybody can repent and seek forgiveness from Jesus/God at any time, correct? Regardless of what they may have done up to that point.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment . ."

—from the Epistle to the Hebrews

You're ducking the question. Is not the option to repent always available?

in the binary absurdities of human politics and the odious agendas of cultural purity, ill always stick up for this particular christian hyprocrisy.

redemption and second chances versus a lifetime of condemnation for a single mistake..

i realise its more nuanced than that with "reasonable" people but we are talking about official policy, and this puts redemption ahead of "kill em all and their ancestors"... a great step forward in western civilisation.

Ibrahim wrote:

Marcus wrote:

Ibrahim wrote:I don't see how your claim is correct here at all. Anybody can repent and seek forgiveness from Jesus/God at any time, correct? Regardless of what they may have done up to that point.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment . ."

—from the Epistle to the Hebrews

You're ducking the question. Is not the option to repent always available?

Call is what you will, Ib. It is an issue I don't care to discuss with you, that's all. If you're really that interested, there are any number of Christian commentaries Online and available for your perusal.

Hope you understand . . .

"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

—from the Epistle to the Hebrews

noddy wrote:

Ibrahim wrote:

Marcus wrote:

Ibrahim wrote:I don't see how your claim is correct here at all. Anybody can repent and seek forgiveness from Jesus/God at any time, correct? Regardless of what they may have done up to that point.

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment . ."

—from the Epistle to the Hebrews

You're ducking the question. Is not the option to repent always available?

in the binary absurdities of human politics and the odious agendas of cultural purity, ill always stick up for this particular christian hyprocrisy.

redemption and second chances versus a lifetime of condemnation for a single mistake..

i realise its more nuanced than that with "reasonable" people but we are talking about official policy, and this puts redemption ahead of "kill em all and their ancestors"... a great step forward in western civilisation.

I'm not even criticizing the concept, just trying to clarify. My understanding is that, in Christianity, anybody can ask for forgiveness at any time no matter what they've done previously. Even the Don Juan character, who cynically plans to repent after much malicious activity, would still be in the clear if his eventual repentance was sincere. This is, if I'm not mistaken, the basis and fundamental appeal of Christianity.

Right?

with the proviso im not a christian and am only repeating what *some* christians i know have said to me.

does god get to judge the truth of the "redemption" or is it human opinion, with all the odious characters and agendas that get to pass this judgement ?

we arent talking perfection here, just lines in the sand for politics.

or more clearly, god will do the judging and the punishment, as a human all you can do is accept they (a) by repenting they atleast they know its not liked and (b) they may even temper their behaviour (c) human judgements carry odious selfish and political baggage

its one of the best things in christianity, one of the things i think the atheists need to be aware of when they are spouting against the christians and ridiculing the alleged "hypocrisy"

Marcus wrote:—from that other place:

Spengler, thank you for your new brilliant essay “Beautiful Evil: Mozart’s Don Giovanni at the Mannes Opera”. . .

Nonetheless, there is something that profoundly bothers me about many of your articles. I guess your idea of what Christianity means is a little bit distorted. I cannot blame you for this. As a Jewish gentleman, your vision about Christians is the vision of an outsider, . .

Goldman replies to the quote above:

Re: Beautiful Evil: Mozart’s Don Giovanni at the Mannes Oper
by Spengler » Thu May 10, 2012 10:45 am

Not even the Rain,

There are Christian answers to Tirso's paradox, to be sure, although they are not elicited easily from the Suarezian Counterreformation theology which Tirso lampooned. One can assert at least single predestination, for example.

Can anyone decipher what the heck Goldman said? Sounds like total bulls**t to me and totally irrelevant to NetR's complaint.

Maybe someone needs to extend an invitation to David to come on down and defend his views here on these fora where he isn't speaking primarily to a bunch of sycophants. As it is, these fora are being referenced over there.

Oh, wow, Not Even The Rain now lists his location as "Plymouth, Devon, England".

Another comment from "over there":

The Christian confession doesn't require enough from the faithful to require him to be good, to do what is right and just and to let His Will influence everything he thinks and does. Contrast this to the Jewish confession.......no?........

The great chain of being, (scala naturae) with the divine right of kings as the first link may have provided the common people of Europe a constant reminder of G_d's presence, but Francisco Suárez sundered that and replaced it with - I'm not sure. Anyway, this illustrates the difficulty that Christendom has with modernism, something our spengler drills us on.....'>.......

Now, what does one do with that maedieval monstrosity, other than have it put restraint upon the motives and actions of the powerful and well connected and encourage a subconscious movement towards personal responsibility and improvement in everyone else?.........

Instead, we have this?.........

First, I have no idea what "Christian confession" this person is talking about, but they are not talking about any of the confessions that came out of the Reformation.

Second, the "great chain of being" is a Greek notion, not Christian except possibly in the writings of St. Thomas. Reformed Christianity thoroughly rejects any such notion.

Third, what is meant by Christendom's "difficulty" with modernism. Maybe the writer will explain? The Christianity with which I'm familiar has no problem with modernism.

Fourth, what is "that medieval monstrosity"?

Marcus wrote:Goldman replies to the quote above:

Goldman wrote: There are Christian answers to Tirso's paradox, to be sure, although they are not elicited easily from the Suarezian Counterreformation theology which Tirso lampooned. One can assert at least single predestination, for example.

Can anyone decipher what the heck Goldman said? Sounds like total bulls**t to me and totally irrelevant to NetR's complaint.

It is all about making choices. God was predestined to pick and choose the faithful righteous, who in turn were predestined to choose in return; accept or reject. The non-elected, that human trash just tumbling down into the dust bin can have doubts whether they are elected and falling or not.. And while they fall and doubt... they can still receive grace and be saved by the bell, so to speak. Saved by the same God predestined to make free choices, making creatures in his image that hence are forced to make free choices as well and in His name. Paradox is what fuels reality. Thus has decided the Angelic Council of Lawmakers. They had to. But not before they were free to chose.

Parodite wrote:It is all about making choices. God was predestined to pick and choose the faithful righteous, who in turn were predestined to choose in return; accept or reject. The non-elected, that human trash just tumbling down into the dust bin can have doubts whether they are elected and falling or not.. And while they fall and doubt... they can still receive grace and be saved by the bell, so to speak. Saved by the same God predestined to make free choices, making creatures in his image that hence are forced to make free choices as well and in His name. Paradox is what fuels reality. Thus has decided the Angelic Council of Lawmakers. They had to. But not before they were free to chose.

Is that what he said? What religion is that?

Marcus wrote:

Parodite wrote:It is all about making choices. God was predestined to pick and choose the faithful righteous, who in turn were predestined to choose in return; accept or reject. The non-elected, that human trash just tumbling down into the dust bin can have doubts whether they are elected and falling or not.. And while they fall and doubt... they can still receive grace and be saved by the bell, so to speak. Saved by the same God predestined to make free choices, making creatures in his image that hence are forced to make free choices as well and in His name. Paradox is what fuels reality. Thus has decided the Angelic Council of Lawmakers. They had to. But not before they were free to chose.

Is that what he said? What religion is that?

Not sure.. Sounds cool though.

Parodite wrote:

Marcus wrote:

Parodite wrote:It is all about making choices. God was predestined to pick and choose the faithful righteous, who in turn were predestined to choose in return; accept or reject. The non-elected, that human trash just tumbling down into the dust bin can have doubts whether they are elected and falling or not.. And while they fall and doubt... they can still receive grace and be saved by the bell, so to speak. Saved by the same God predestined to make free choices, making creatures in his image that hence are forced to make free choices as well and in His name. Paradox is what fuels reality. Thus has decided the Angelic Council of Lawmakers. They had to. But not before they were free to chose.

Is that what he said? What religion is that?

Not sure.. Sounds cool though.

A couple more posts of that kind of gibberish, and I'll think you're a sock puppet for Goldman.


Just kidding . .

Marcus wrote:

Parodite wrote:

Marcus wrote:

Parodite wrote:It is all about making choices. God was predestined to pick and choose the faithful righteous, who in turn were predestined to choose in return; accept or reject. The non-elected, that human trash just tumbling down into the dust bin can have doubts whether they are elected and falling or not.. And while they fall and doubt... they can still receive grace and be saved by the bell, so to speak. Saved by the same God predestined to make free choices, making creatures in his image that hence are forced to make free choices as well and in His name. Paradox is what fuels reality. Thus has decided the Angelic Council of Lawmakers. They had to. But not before they were free to chose.

Is that what he said? What religion is that?

Not sure.. Sounds cool though.

A couple more posts of that kind of gibberish, and I'll think you're a sock puppet for Goldman.


Just kidding . .

It is for those compelled to add para- and abnormal spice and flavour to the dish. If they have to, well then they do. What can you do? The result is not pleasing to the eye though.

As for Goldman, well he is just writing his life I guess. As most of us do. Or writing each others life; Jew says Christian is such, Christian says Jew is so... and so ad infinitum and in endless variations. Which begs the question if we are not all for the most part actors in somebody elses play, i.e. the long writing of history? Specifically of interest when "to each his own" is the most personal and premordial supposition that fits like an easy shoe every day of the season. Do you own anything at all when it is all given? The claim of ownership seems in serious violation of principia natura.

Parodite wrote:. . Do you own anything at all when it is all given? The claim of ownership seems in serious violation of principia natura.

A decent question, Rhap . . I may not own anything, but I am a steward of much while I'm alive.

"I slept and dreamt that life was beauty,
I woke to find that life is duty . . . "

—Ellen Sturgis Hooper

Typhoon wrote:Spenglerman is bemoaning that it's not yet another trite bit of fluff.

The best line in the essay is:

Spengler wrote:If you don't leave the theater confused, you haven't been listening.

I love to laugh. This one had me rolling.

Okay..... I guess this is being discussed here.......'>..........

Marcus wrote:First, I have no idea what "Christian confession" this person is talking about, but they are not talking about any of the confessions that came out of the Reformation.

This one I had in mind....... way to bust my hump........

Marcus wrote:Second, the "great chain of being" is a Greek notion, not Christian except possibly in the writings of St. Thomas. Reformed Christianity thoroughly rejects any such notion.

Whether the 'Chain of Being' was properly Christian or theologically correct - it was coherent, believable and compelling to the multitudes of late antiquity through the high middle ages. That is not a trivial notion......

Marcus wrote:Third, what is meant by Christendom's "difficulty" with modernism. Maybe the writer will explain? The Christianity with which I'm familiar has no problem with modernism.

Let's start with something like...... the reformation? Of course, somebody here might be of a faction that doesn't see a problem, much like the drunk that doesn't have a drinking problem because it's.... "I drink, I fall down, no problem"........

Marcus wrote:Fourth, what is "that medieval monstrosity"?

Said "Chain of Being"....... I thought the concept could cross the deep chasm of a single-line paragraph break.......'>.........



I edited it some, not realising it was already quoted here. Didn't change much, maybe less alarming:

lzzrdgrrl wrote:

".......He is a brilliant and charming young man of the high nobility who happens to enjoy rape and murder. But he is a conventional Catholic who acknowledges the saving power of the Church and the attainability of salvation through the exercise of free will. "What a long time I have to pay it back!" is Juan's refrain ("Que largo me lo fiais," the play's alternate title): he is young and has years left in which to rape and murder before he repents........"

The Christian confession doesn't require enough from the faithful to require him to be good, to do what is right and just and to let His Will influence everything he thinks and does. Contrast this to the Jewish confession.......no?........

The great chain of being, (scala naturae) with the divine right of kings as a critical link may have provided the common people of Europe a constant reminder of G_d's presence, but Francisco Suárez sundered that and replaced it with - I'm not sure. Anyway, this illustrates the difficulty Christendom has with modernism, something our spengler drills us on.....'>.......

Now, what does one do with that maedieval monstrosity, other than have it put restraint upon the motives and actions of the powerful and well-connected and encourage a subconscious movement towards personal responsibility and improvement in everyone else?.........

Instead, we have this?.........

In a letter to his wife Constanze of 30 September, 1790, Mozart pens a confession:

"If the people were able to see into my heart, I would have to be almost ashamed of myself. Everything is cold to me. Cold like ice."

Don Giovanni is offered a last chance at redemption, and he rejects it to plunge into the fires of Hell. It is not only that in choosing Hell he is being more true to himself, refusing to compromise the choices he has already made.

Hell is warmer. And what Don Giovanni has never been able to abide is the coldness of solitude. He must give himself the enjoyment of flesh, and in this the eternal torment of his flesh is preferable, because at least he will have some. The truth is that he will enjoy Hell, perhaps even more than he has enjoyed life, because for those souls that are structured entirely by the need for enjoyment, life already is Hell.

In plunging into any passion, whether it be of debauchery or of devotion, men seek warmth and companionship, and the enjoyment of what it is to know recognition. The motive of all is to flee the Cold, whether into Eros or into the Love of God. genuflect, marry, or pray, you seek warmth, to be done with the Cold. And so long as you are alive, you are done with the Cold. But the Cold is not done with you.

Marcus wrote:

Parodite wrote:. . Do you own anything at all when it is all given? The claim of ownership seems in serious violation of principia natura.

A decent question, Rhap . . I may not own anything, but I am a steward of much while I'm alive.

My point was rather that what you own (temporarily and in stewardship) is not primarily a personal choice nor the product of your very own creativity. The content is a given, a product of history in our unique points in space-time. I don't think that what was given to you allows for much freedom "to do with it as you please; paint it blue, put it on a shelve, throw it away in the trash bin"; these are not what is happening. That freedom does hardly exist. What was "given" is not something you own, but rather the story of your behavior in the wider context. The web weaves. And it is changing, but maybe much slower than we think.

Predestination, free will in the face of God, the Christian sociopath, the apparant paradoxes... are just explorations of an old theme and question on the nature of things. You can also find it in interpretations of quantum mechanics like causal interpretations versus probabilistic interpretations. Or even when you just step into a bakery and are about to say what you want while scanning the options in your mind (could include trying to remember what your wife ordered you to buy).

I don't want to be rude, but don't you guys ever get tired of all this nonsense?... I guess it beats playing cricket in the Grand Chain of Boring and Irrelevant Things, but not by much...

Endovelico wrote:I don't want to be rude, but don't you guys ever get tired of all this nonsense?...

Yes, most of the time unless I see some poetry in it, or can connect some dots that appear too far away to be connected. Just free play

Dioscuri wrote:In a letter to his wife Constanze of 30 September, 1790, Mozart pens a confession:

"If the people were able to see into my heart, I would have to be almost ashamed of myself. Everything is cold to me. Cold like ice."

Don Giovanni is offered a last chance at redemption, and he rejects it to plunge into the fires of Hell. It is not only that in choosing Hell he is being more true to himself, refusing to compromise the choices he has already made.

Hell is warmer. And what Don Giovanni has never been able to abide is the coldness of solitude. He must give himself the enjoyment of flesh, and in this the eternal torment of his flesh is preferable, because at least he will have some. The truth is that he will enjoy Hell, perhaps even more than he has enjoyed life, because for those souls that are structured entirely by the need for enjoyment, life already is Hell.

In plunging into any passion, whether it be of debauchery or of devotion, men seek warmth and companionship, and the enjoyment of what it is to know recognition. The motive of all is to flee the Cold, whether into Eros or into the Love of God. genuflect, marry, or pray, you seek warmth, to be done with the Cold. And so long as you are alive, you are done with the Cold. But the Cold is not done with you.

What is it about the cold that scares you so, Discouri? There's a time and a season for everything. Now is the time for life and enjoyment. There will be a time for cold, later.

Believe me, no 89-year old sits on her deathbed saying: "I wish I had obsessed more about the Cold."

Perhaps more importantly, why do you think some people become ensnared with the obsession about the cold, while others, similarly thoughtful, do not? Just the chance draw of personality development?

Demon of Undoing wrote:Nobody is everything. A thought exercise by intellectuals, for intellectuals, about intellectuals. In the real world, Bill Hickock got shot in the back by a punk kid while holding aces and eights.

And Stalin died (more or less) peacefully in his bed of old age, after killing, raping and deporting half of Europe, ruling one of the largest empires in the history of the world.
Well done there, indeed.

Torchwood wrote:Beautiful is not the good - just look at the Italian renaissance, the high point of Western visual art, when you could literally get away with murder as long as you did it with style. But far more evil has been generated by deeply moral persons with a flawed morality, who thought it was crucial for the good of all to burn heretics, keep slaves, women and the lower orders in their place, eliminate the bourgeois, slay the infidel - and kill Jews. Zealous intolerant morality does of course have some Abrahamic roots...

+1

Ibrahim wrote:19th century Romanticism.

Itself a nefarious and poisonous counter-reaction to the perceived rainbow unweaving of the Enlightenment.