jar - On Christianity

OK, I get it. These devout Christians look out "into the world of men" and they see, in the words of John Henry Newman, a sight that fills them with "unspeakable distress." They see no God.So do the nihilists.

Well, yes, but let's hear from our old friend Newman: Good stuff, huh? Far cry from the stuff on this forum.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

The point I was making, Kuresi, is that at least these old Christians were honest. Look at that quote from Newman. He looks out into the world and sees no sign of God. Exactly.What he sees--and what I see--is ACCIDENT.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

---

"Your friends, if they can, may bury you with some distinction, and set up a monument, to let posterity see that your dust lies under such a stone; and when that is done, all is done. Your place is filled up by another, the world is just in the same state it was, you are blotted out of its sight, and as much forgotten by the world as if you had never belonged to it."--William Law

It would be sentimental if I pretended to feel an angst that I do not in fact feel. The only reason I mention the nihilism is to counter the sentimentality that I am barraged with on this forum from all sides.The atheists are out to show how happy they are and how wonderful everything is without God.The New Age Christians like Jar are telling us how beautiful and awesome everything is as long as we learn to love ourselves and be interactive and public-spirited and refer to God as "She" occasionally (the requisite political correctness).There's no rest for the weary around this place, but one must do one's duty.

Lewis' description of self-love and yours are very different.Lewis is not saying we have to "learn to love ourselves." He accepts that we do automatically. He's explaining what self-love consists of, and what it consists of is good will toward oneself. One keeps on having good will toward oneself no matter what one does.The way you speak of it, self-love is a merit and a necessity. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Yes, it's taken out of context. He's working up to talk about the Fall.

A rather eccentric definition of the term "love." So if we use your definitiion of "love," we can translate the above as follows:Be honest and critical of God and be honest and critical of others as you are honest and critical of yourself.You don't seem to be critiquing God very much.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

I doubt that anyone is going to disagree with that.They might add, however, that the story you present about Christianity is a bit one-sided, unless you think that Christians never did anything that was good.

That was cruel. Also funny.

Maybe some people think that destroying these cultures was a good thing to do. After all, morals are subjective, right? Who's to say you're right and they're wrong?

In rare cases. I'm speaking of most people.

1. Eastern religions--they seem rather vague to me. The doctrines are going to have be clear, distinct and definite in order for me to have any truck with it. They mention the way to nirvana is to lose one's desire for whatever, but don't explain how this wicked desire came about in the first place.
2. Traditional Christianity---belief in the Fall and the Passion. The Fall does not fit with evolution, unless we think animal pain doesn't matter. Questions about the historicity of Jesus. Questions about how Paul discusses Christ---lack of specifics about details of Jesus' life. Gap of 30-40 years before first texts. And the whole story is rather fantastic.
3. New Age Christianity (such as Jar's beliefs)--this is a version of "Christianity" that excludes the Fall and the Passion. The problem here is that such a religion provides no explanation for human suffering that arises from nature. Jar just says it's "natural," which explains nothing. This is really not so much a religion as a concoction of modern ideas about healthy-mindedness grafted vaguely onto some Biblical passages.
4. nihilism (my belief)--a logical extension of atheism. Fits with evolution, fits with the apparently accidental nature of life. No very cogent explanation of moral feelings and uncertainty about how "consciousness" might have arisen.

What "holes"?

Well, when I said that Eastern religions seem vague, I meant they were vague to me. They might be perfectly clear to someone else. And of course I didn't mention Judaism or Islam or some other religions. I just mentioned what I'm familiar with.I'll stand by my logical objection to New Age Christianity having no explanation for the problem of suffering. Any religion worth its salt, in my view, has to attempt that. That's why I said it's not really a religion.

It offers answers to such questions. How tentative they were would depend on how certain one was about one's nihilistic beliefs.