Supersoulty's Christian Theological Debate Thread

[Alcon]

Throwing this over to Chris...

[Alcon]

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," and I do have to point out that the ends of your implied philosophy could be a soma-infused clusterf**k of id fulfillment without even the hint of autonomy; in and of itself, not objectively better than quote-nihilism-endquote.

"Proving you wrong" is a little vulgar but whatev

[Alcon]

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.

I assume the interpretation you're going on is:

1. The meaning of Christianity is found in the afterlife.
2. There is no afterlife.
3. Thus, Christianity teaches to find meaning in nothingness, i.e., nihilism.

Isn't that a little odd when Christianity is also a moral system?  Is fruitlessness, "nihilism"?

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.

I understand this much:

1. You believe that the "soul" is more aptly a manifestation of the individual.

2. You believe that there is a "greater unity," which is the "dissolution of the boundaries between the senses and the sensed" (explain?)

3. You believe in the complete obliteration of the ego -- the definition and intent of which you'll also have to explain before I can reply competently.

[Alcon]

Not quite.

Christianity, to be sure, professes an (overly stringent) moral system, but the source of these values is rooted in the spiritual realm, not in "this world of sin and sorrow", as it were. In order to do this, and against the pagans (whose deities were gods of natural elements; whose festivals were life-affirming), it was necessary for them to remove the sense of value that the pagans had found in the beauty and wonder of physical being, and Platonically abstract it to a higher source. It is this devaluation of the world upon which Christianity rests - the location of all value and meaning in a godly sphere - and, because it devalues this life so thoroughly, it can therefore be called a nihilistic religion. Heidegger called this process the "emptying out of the world".

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 do not believe that either the concept of a soul or 'the individual' is meaningful; both are useful lies formulated by the Christian religion in the service of its metaphysics, to divide man from the 'outer world' (in the Kantian, the noumenon from the phenomenon) and isolate it, to service its concept of a purer world beyond. I believe that our oldest ancestors would not have found the notion that they were distinguishable from their surroundings intelligible. You might regard this as a form of monism.

Oh, OK, I think I got confused by the proximity with the "my philosophy" bit -- it seemed kind of discordant 

I believe that the ultimate activity in life is a sort of ritualistic self-destruction, with the end goal being to once again re-experience primal oneness with the material world. This has no spiritual meaning; only subjective. And the result, of course, would be to completely destroy the boundary between subjective and 'objective' experience. This is similar to the teachings of the Buddha, though the reasoning and the desired result are far different.

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.

Odd thought: would a being that could 'objectively experience' something be a God?

Isn't God pretty much defined as objectively everythinging?  I'm not sure I find such an idea meaningful either way.

[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