How can you believe that "The reason AA wants to downplay religion of all stripes is he is an atheist"? Did I read the same essay as you? AA wrote that...
"Christianity cannot be reduced to mere utility — it is more than whatever worldly ends we may have today and must finally resolve always in affirming salvation in the name of Jesus Chr…
How can you believe that "The reason AA wants to downplay religion of all stripes is he is an atheist"? Did I read the same essay as you? AA wrote that...
"Christianity cannot be reduced to mere utility — it is more than whatever worldly ends we may have today and must finally resolve always in affirming salvation in the name of Jesus Christ."
He's one of you, a type of theist, and like you he's not ready to reckon with the fact that Western civ. is an incoherent mishmash. Its people are suffering from its internal contradictions, its absurdities (e.g. the USA's Declaration of Independence), and its history of worldwide busibodyism. No one ought to expect it to survive, and we would be fools to exhaust ourselves trying to extend its lifespan. It would be better to form small study groups to work out the fundamentals of a defensible ontology, a religion, and a way of life for new society and a replacement civilization which rejects most of the legacy institutions of so-called Western civ. Americans, for example, would be expected to repudiate the precious Constitution, which begins with an obvious lie, one which contradicts history and implies that absolutely everyone, even children and Random, has authority to rule.
Since you are theistic, let me give you one example of a starting point for such a study group. Suppose that you and AA insisted for the sake of argument that your god(s) can do absolutely anything at all, without restriction. Probably you would not believe it, as Muhammadists do, but let's say that you did. Then I would talk you down from that ledge by asking if the god exists necessarily. Assuming your answer that it does, I would remind you that the alleged necessity is a way of asserting that the god is NOT in charge of existence. Rather, there must be some law (or regularity, if you like) which detains the god and limits its willpower. So even if the god of Genesis 1 exists, it's a being which deserves much less reverence than is popularly supposed. After all, it has neglected to explain carefully all of its limitations in the scriptures attributed to it.
Those who don't believe in a god may not be satisfied with that starting point, so here is another. Let the nihilist declare his denial of truth. "There is no truth," he says. Well, fine, then it's not true that "there is no truth", but it's surely true that the nihilist claimed what he did. If he makes a face, then even he knows it's true you've trampled down his nihilism. The assertion entails its own refutation, and all who cannot or will not strike a blow for absolutism against it may be dismissed from the group as termites or driftwood. Any Muihammadist who expects to remain in the room will have to admit that the hand of Allah is somehow chained by brute facts of existence which no being can alter or abolish. So much for Islam, which looks like a sect of Christianity begun by a street barker who hated the Trinity.
Still another starting point for our planning commission can be found in Euclid's Elements and other mathematical texts. It's been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that √2 could never be written in the form a/b where a and b are integers. This is a truth of number theory, which we really ought to call numerology, to deprive superstition of a word it doesn't deserve. This truth about √2 is good at all times and all places, and it's another important reminder about the limitations upon willpower, the 2nd most important ontological principle of Abrahamic religion. (The first is egocentricity. See Exodus 3:14.)
And so it would go, working as quickly as possible through a number of basic topics until we have formed a concensus on enough material to start planning how to tutor children. They must learn about existence and their place in it. Along the way we would form some ideas about the liberal arts, including Capella's conception. An update to his list could read like this, I think:
(1) logic
(2) linguistics (not just grammar)
(3) rhetoric
(4) dialectics (as method and rules of discourse)
(5) mathematics (arithmetic, geometry, and more)
(6) physics
(7) astronomy
(8) harmony (the aspect of music and a way to teamwork)
I am going by the Distributist stating AA is an atheist and that, that effects his world view. I would love to see AA have a dialog/debate on this subject with AA. I am new to Christianity and The Distributist as a long time Catholic I am sure could state why an acive faith is neccesary for western civilization to flourish in a deeper and more informed fashion than I am capable of. IMO this dialog about whether faith is neccesary for a dissident right reinvigoration of western culture is neccesary can only be dffered for ao long.
One more thing, slightly off topic: Europe is being overrun by Muhammadists and subsaharans not only for cheap labor but also to crush resistance to the dominant Semitic ideas about existence. A free, knowledgable Europe would be an existential threat to Israel. European science and philsophy have completely discredited the excuse used by Israel since ancient times for Israel's chauvinism, its malice, and its parasitism. Even the alleged captivity in Egypt has been exposed as a defamation, which erodes its utility as a victimology for crybully Israel.
When deprived of its god and heaven, Israel, which was reduced to only Judah, is left without an excuse for appointing itself as the brahmins of all humanity (Exodus 19:5-6). This insult against the chosen could not be allowed to stand. So we are living through the Maccabean reaction to reality all over again, but it's on a much greater scale and is mostly outside the socalled Holy Land.
Maybe The Distributist is just being hyperbolic? I suppose he might also call call AA a Christian of the road, the rocky ground, or the thorns and brambles, not a Christian of the good soil.
You don't say which sect of Christianity you chose, but I'm guessing Catholicism (in which I was raised and clung to until about my 30th bday) or one if its derivatives. I think that all of them, possibly even Calvinism, would agree that the Ascension is the concluding work of Redemption. (Hardon, S.J., in "Modern Catholic Dictionary".) Arrival of Jesus' body at heaven, therefore, concludes the ascension and hence the redemption.
The ascension is not some mystical experience; it can't be waved away as a figurative event with a complaint about literalism. So a few questions naturally arise: How far away is heaven, first mentioned as the firmament at Gen. 1:6? How long did it take the body of Jesus to travel there? What about problems like radiation above the atmosphere? and the bends as air pressure falls to virtuall 0 psi?
If you've read Genesis 1, you've noticed the passage at vv.14-18. Verse 17 insists that the Sun and the Moon (not named there as such) were placed in the firmament (rakia) i.e. heaven (shamayim). Somehow they are supposed to move around while attached to heaven. This implies that the Sun and the Moon are almost exactly the same distance from Earth during a solar eclipse. This is a problem for Greek science, or for Israel, depending upon your point of view. Aristarchus of Samos, who lived before Caesar, showed that the Sun is much farther away then the Moon. I think he calculated a factor of 100; the corrected figure is close to 400x. Aristarchus was nonetheless correct in principle about the relative distances, and his discovery is one of the great achievements of the ancient world.
Another problem for Israel is that this shamayim does not exist. If it did, it would touch the Earth, forming a seal to keep out the waters (mayim) above it. It would be a navigation hazard for aircraft, and satellites would be impossible, for they would crash into heaven and fall to the Earth. Nevertheles, Gen. 1 states that the firmament was installed in deep waters (1:6), then the water below heaven drained (1:9). So heaven would be a protective dome under which we are living right now. The astronauts of Apollo 8 would beg to differ, which is ironic given that they read the first ten verses of Gen. 1 while in orbit around the Moon in December 1968. Anyhow, if any heaven exists, it must be very far away. If more than 2,000 light-years, Jesus hasn't yet arrived and so it would be fair to say that redemption remains incomplete.
Check out "My Encounter with the Firmament" by a Jewish MD who was educated in a yeshiva where they taught Genesis as it was understood and believed in ancient times. It includes a small amount of Hebrew text, but translations are provided. https://www.thetorah.com/article/my-encounter-with-the-firmament
P.S. If a religion promises bodily immortality, it's probably just a form of cryptosecularism disguised with spiritism. And you are correct that a dialogue about belief is necessary. It ought to begin with ontology and cosmology, more or less as Genesis 1 does.
How can you believe that "The reason AA wants to downplay religion of all stripes is he is an atheist"? Did I read the same essay as you? AA wrote that...
"Christianity cannot be reduced to mere utility — it is more than whatever worldly ends we may have today and must finally resolve always in affirming salvation in the name of Jesus Christ."
He's one of you, a type of theist, and like you he's not ready to reckon with the fact that Western civ. is an incoherent mishmash. Its people are suffering from its internal contradictions, its absurdities (e.g. the USA's Declaration of Independence), and its history of worldwide busibodyism. No one ought to expect it to survive, and we would be fools to exhaust ourselves trying to extend its lifespan. It would be better to form small study groups to work out the fundamentals of a defensible ontology, a religion, and a way of life for new society and a replacement civilization which rejects most of the legacy institutions of so-called Western civ. Americans, for example, would be expected to repudiate the precious Constitution, which begins with an obvious lie, one which contradicts history and implies that absolutely everyone, even children and Random, has authority to rule.
Since you are theistic, let me give you one example of a starting point for such a study group. Suppose that you and AA insisted for the sake of argument that your god(s) can do absolutely anything at all, without restriction. Probably you would not believe it, as Muhammadists do, but let's say that you did. Then I would talk you down from that ledge by asking if the god exists necessarily. Assuming your answer that it does, I would remind you that the alleged necessity is a way of asserting that the god is NOT in charge of existence. Rather, there must be some law (or regularity, if you like) which detains the god and limits its willpower. So even if the god of Genesis 1 exists, it's a being which deserves much less reverence than is popularly supposed. After all, it has neglected to explain carefully all of its limitations in the scriptures attributed to it.
Those who don't believe in a god may not be satisfied with that starting point, so here is another. Let the nihilist declare his denial of truth. "There is no truth," he says. Well, fine, then it's not true that "there is no truth", but it's surely true that the nihilist claimed what he did. If he makes a face, then even he knows it's true you've trampled down his nihilism. The assertion entails its own refutation, and all who cannot or will not strike a blow for absolutism against it may be dismissed from the group as termites or driftwood. Any Muihammadist who expects to remain in the room will have to admit that the hand of Allah is somehow chained by brute facts of existence which no being can alter or abolish. So much for Islam, which looks like a sect of Christianity begun by a street barker who hated the Trinity.
Still another starting point for our planning commission can be found in Euclid's Elements and other mathematical texts. It's been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that √2 could never be written in the form a/b where a and b are integers. This is a truth of number theory, which we really ought to call numerology, to deprive superstition of a word it doesn't deserve. This truth about √2 is good at all times and all places, and it's another important reminder about the limitations upon willpower, the 2nd most important ontological principle of Abrahamic religion. (The first is egocentricity. See Exodus 3:14.)
And so it would go, working as quickly as possible through a number of basic topics until we have formed a concensus on enough material to start planning how to tutor children. They must learn about existence and their place in it. Along the way we would form some ideas about the liberal arts, including Capella's conception. An update to his list could read like this, I think:
(1) logic
(2) linguistics (not just grammar)
(3) rhetoric
(4) dialectics (as method and rules of discourse)
(5) mathematics (arithmetic, geometry, and more)
(6) physics
(7) astronomy
(8) harmony (the aspect of music and a way to teamwork)
I am going by the Distributist stating AA is an atheist and that, that effects his world view. I would love to see AA have a dialog/debate on this subject with AA. I am new to Christianity and The Distributist as a long time Catholic I am sure could state why an acive faith is neccesary for western civilization to flourish in a deeper and more informed fashion than I am capable of. IMO this dialog about whether faith is neccesary for a dissident right reinvigoration of western culture is neccesary can only be dffered for ao long.
One more thing, slightly off topic: Europe is being overrun by Muhammadists and subsaharans not only for cheap labor but also to crush resistance to the dominant Semitic ideas about existence. A free, knowledgable Europe would be an existential threat to Israel. European science and philsophy have completely discredited the excuse used by Israel since ancient times for Israel's chauvinism, its malice, and its parasitism. Even the alleged captivity in Egypt has been exposed as a defamation, which erodes its utility as a victimology for crybully Israel.
When deprived of its god and heaven, Israel, which was reduced to only Judah, is left without an excuse for appointing itself as the brahmins of all humanity (Exodus 19:5-6). This insult against the chosen could not be allowed to stand. So we are living through the Maccabean reaction to reality all over again, but it's on a much greater scale and is mostly outside the socalled Holy Land.
Maybe The Distributist is just being hyperbolic? I suppose he might also call call AA a Christian of the road, the rocky ground, or the thorns and brambles, not a Christian of the good soil.
You don't say which sect of Christianity you chose, but I'm guessing Catholicism (in which I was raised and clung to until about my 30th bday) or one if its derivatives. I think that all of them, possibly even Calvinism, would agree that the Ascension is the concluding work of Redemption. (Hardon, S.J., in "Modern Catholic Dictionary".) Arrival of Jesus' body at heaven, therefore, concludes the ascension and hence the redemption.
The ascension is not some mystical experience; it can't be waved away as a figurative event with a complaint about literalism. So a few questions naturally arise: How far away is heaven, first mentioned as the firmament at Gen. 1:6? How long did it take the body of Jesus to travel there? What about problems like radiation above the atmosphere? and the bends as air pressure falls to virtuall 0 psi?
If you've read Genesis 1, you've noticed the passage at vv.14-18. Verse 17 insists that the Sun and the Moon (not named there as such) were placed in the firmament (rakia) i.e. heaven (shamayim). Somehow they are supposed to move around while attached to heaven. This implies that the Sun and the Moon are almost exactly the same distance from Earth during a solar eclipse. This is a problem for Greek science, or for Israel, depending upon your point of view. Aristarchus of Samos, who lived before Caesar, showed that the Sun is much farther away then the Moon. I think he calculated a factor of 100; the corrected figure is close to 400x. Aristarchus was nonetheless correct in principle about the relative distances, and his discovery is one of the great achievements of the ancient world.
Another problem for Israel is that this shamayim does not exist. If it did, it would touch the Earth, forming a seal to keep out the waters (mayim) above it. It would be a navigation hazard for aircraft, and satellites would be impossible, for they would crash into heaven and fall to the Earth. Nevertheles, Gen. 1 states that the firmament was installed in deep waters (1:6), then the water below heaven drained (1:9). So heaven would be a protective dome under which we are living right now. The astronauts of Apollo 8 would beg to differ, which is ironic given that they read the first ten verses of Gen. 1 while in orbit around the Moon in December 1968. Anyhow, if any heaven exists, it must be very far away. If more than 2,000 light-years, Jesus hasn't yet arrived and so it would be fair to say that redemption remains incomplete.
Check out "My Encounter with the Firmament" by a Jewish MD who was educated in a yeshiva where they taught Genesis as it was understood and believed in ancient times. It includes a small amount of Hebrew text, but translations are provided. https://www.thetorah.com/article/my-encounter-with-the-firmament
You can find the entry for Ascension at http://therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm
P.S. If a religion promises bodily immortality, it's probably just a form of cryptosecularism disguised with spiritism. And you are correct that a dialogue about belief is necessary. It ought to begin with ontology and cosmology, more or less as Genesis 1 does.