Supersoulty's Christian Theological Debate Thread

[12th Doctor]

Christianity is nihilistic and life-denying, because it

A.) Condemns as sin those activities which humans engage in to further their enjoyment of life; it does this because

B.) Its followers hate and fear the temporality of the senses - and hence sensuality - and the world itself; and

C.) It has constructed an artificial metaphysics centered on the hereafter in an effort to falsify the objective world as a means of escaping the inevitability of change and death.

Prove me wrong.

That does not constitute "nihilism,"

It most certainly does.

What  is Christianity's primary claim about this life? That it is of "the world, the flesh and the Devil"; that it is to be abnegated, as far as possible; and that 'the beyond' is a purer sphere of existence where "He will wipe every tear from (the Christians) eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain."

What is implied in this philosophy? Simply this: that this lesser mortal coil derives its value only in relation to the beyond; that it lacks any innate value; indeed, that it is frequently malignant. The very act of devaluing this life is in itself nihilistic, just as nihilistic and more as any atheistic existentialism; the very word 'nihility' means 'absence of value'.

Historically, of course, this is certain understandable: Christianity formed among the lower Judean classes as a means to undermine the sensualistic ethos of their Latin masters. In doing so, however, the proto-Christians undermined the value of physicality itself, a doctrine that would find ultimate expression in the ancient practice of "Mortification of the Flesh", and in Manila every Easter today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's exactly the point: complete absorption of the individual (the 'soul', as it were) into a greater unity - the dissolution of the boundaries between the senses and the sensed - which leads, ultimately, to the complete obliteration of the ego is exactly the end-goal of my philosophy. And this is not some form of individualistic libertinism; to the contrary, the concept of 'individual' implies some static center to man, some kernel of truth, some... soul. Individualism is a Christian phenomenon. The intended result of Dionysian praxis is total, joyous self-obliteration.

I am also a nihilist. Just in the opposite direction, for the opposite reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know very well what Gnosticism is. That's not what I'm talking about. The Gnostics questioned the reality of the flesh (because it was evil); 'mere' Christians inquire as to its value (again because it is evil). These are different branches of the same weed.

No they aren't.  The Gnostics were condemned based on their notion that the physical reality was inherently evil... this developed into the the notion that the OT and NT God's differ, but that's not where it started.  On that basis, they fully condemned sexuality, property, etc.  95% of the rest of Christianity believed that its not the physical world that is evil, but rather that people corrupt, and must do what they can to improve their world.  Of course, the further you are from Catholicism/Orthodoxy, the less you agree with that, but that just demonstrates the uselessness of proclaiming that there is even such a thing as one Christian view to begin with.

[Scam of God]

I think that essentially leads to what I said -- it strips the worldly value and sets the value upon a non-existent entity.

I'd argue that it's largely ineffective in doing that, no matter how hard it tries -- we can get into that.  But I suppose my question is, why does this trouble you so much?  Is that really so much different than any other falsified state of consciousness?  What pisses you off, here?

I had written a rather lengthy response, but my session timed out, so I'll attempt to abbreviate it:


There is a concept in the philosophical discipline of phenomenology (the study of the relationship between thought and the external world) called intentionality: thoughts must always be directed at something. This does not simply mean, for example, that when I think of my Pekingese, I form the mental image of a dog; my thoughts must instead be directed at that dog, I must suppose some distinction between it and myself, I must set aside my knowledge that we exist on the same sphere and presume some degree of individual separation between us (forgive me if this is melodramatic, but I am not good with words). I've heard it said that thought is emotion once removed, and I agree with the sentiment.

This same dualism exists in the mind's interactions with all things. If I look at myself in the mirror, I do not see ego cogito, the thinking self, but rather a somewhat gangly contraption of skin and eyes and teeth. And while I understand that I am this body in the mirror, the thinking self, being somewhat detached from it all, sometimes struggles with this notion, owing to the artificial binary explained above. I consciously know that the mind is simply a byproduct of the very physical brain; but the ego rejects this explanation forthright, since it does not naturally know (without the aid of modern physiology) that it emanates from the brain. It has grown accustomed to inventing stories about itself.

Christianity's soul-atomism exacerbates this alienation; indeed, it thrives on it. Not only does Christianity teach that the thinking, willing, feeling self exists separately from the body, and that the body will be left to rot when the "dead in Christ are called up first", but it teaches that denial of the body and the body's impulses - forced asceticism - in favor of purity of thought and feeling somehow improves holiness. We see the final realization of this mode of thought in Francis of Assisi's self-scarification, or those ancient ascetics who would climb up on pillars in the Near East to fast and live for decades, preaching the Gospel. And so it is not Christianity's nihilism that I despise (remember, I am a nihilist "in the opposite direction"), but the effects of its nihilism: life-denial, and the resulting alienation from the self. I am diametrically, radically opposed to the Christian concept of 'selflessness' as a physical thing.

I'm sure you're sick of me asking you to elaborate, but a "sort of ritualistic self-destruction" has intrigued me, and the Buddhism bit wasn't enough to sink the idea in.

My ultimate goal is to find some method - including the use of alcohol and drugs and meditation, as well as forms of ritual which focus thought on a single externality (much as at happens in Mass) to tear down the artificial binaries imposed by Christianized Western culture and experience life as indistinguishable from this chair I sit in, or this keyboard on which I know type.

In fact, I've got a little vodka. I think I'll try now. =D

[Alcon]

I want to give this more attention tomorrow, when I'm not tired, and I can offer more than "existential purpose is to have people's asses on you?"-type snark.

Anyway I think it's interesting and perverse enough to give due credit, understanding and time

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm always quite hesitant to mention Kundalini experiences, but I think that's a more common term for what Einzige may be describing - it's what instantly entered my mind while reading his posts, but I have a tendancy to look for it everywhere. Assuming this is the sort of experience he describes, I imagine he rejects the ties it has to established religions/philosophies and sees it as more of a purely biological construction.. of which I see no real purpose (perhaps ultimate contentedness?) The temporary but always profound snippits of experiences I've had with dissolution of the ego have actually always been paradoxical. It is the purest sense of all, no sense at all. And it's a noble goal to try to achieve without the use of drugs, which always end with the sensations (or lack thereof) seeming too artificial after the fact.

That said, I don't think it itself can't mesh with Christianity figuratively speaking (Holy Spirit anyone?) I think most religions have the same kind of goal when you get down to the very base of them without tying in all of the moralistic/mythological BS. Buddhism is just exceptional because it is so much more up front about it.

That said I'll leave the discussion to the more learned.

[Jeff from NC]

This same dualism exists in the mind's interactions with all things. If I look at myself in the mirror, I do not see ego cogito, the thinking self, but rather a somewhat gangly contraption of skin and eyes and teeth. And while I understand that I am this body in the mirror, the thinking self, being somewhat detached from it all, sometimes struggles with this notion, owing to the artificial binary explained above. I consciously know that the mind is simply a byproduct of the very physical brain; but the ego rejects this explanation forthright, since it does not naturally know (without the aid of modern physiology) that it emanates from the brain. It has grown accustomed to inventing stories about itself.

Christianity's soul-atomism exacerbates this alienation; indeed, it thrives on it. Not only does Christianity teach that the thinking, willing, feeling self exists separately from the body, and that the body will be left to rot when the "dead in Christ are called up first", but it teaches that denial of the body and the body's impulses - forced asceticism - in favor of purity of thought and feeling somehow improves holiness.

How do you interpret the Christian teachings about communion?  Specifically the Roman Catholic belief that Christ is physically present in consecrated bread and wine, and that by physically consuming it, Catholics renew their faith and receive spiritual nourishment?  Or, for that matter, the doctrine that feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, etc. is a duty of every Christian because when you feed the hungry, you are really feeding Christ?  Or, for that matter, that killing, suicide, and smoking are sins, even though they hasten our worldly death?

I think these beliefs show that the belief that the material world is inferior and temporary is not to be confused with the belief that the material world has no value or meaning.  In fact, many Christians would say it has much meaning at all.  Derived, but - as I asked before - is derived value not value all the same?