It's easy to understand that you are attracted to nihilism in general. It's not easy to explain how these totally sold-out supernaturalist Christians also impress you with their "nihilism" -- which is really realism.
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.
This is true Christianity. It is a far cry from the sentimentalist Christianity you are deploring
Well, yes, but let's hear from our old friend Newman:
Starting then with the being of a God (which, as I have said, is as certain to me as the certainty of my own existence, though when I try to put the grounds of that certainty into logical shape I find a difficulty in doing so in mood and figure to my satisfaction,) I look out of myself into the world of men, and there I see a sight that fills me with unspeakable distress. The world simply seems to give the lie to that great truth, of which my whole being is so full; and the effect upon me is, in consequence, as a matter of necessity, as confusing as if it denied that I am in existence myself. If I looked into a mirror, and did not see my face, I should have the sort of feeling which comes upon me, when I look into this living busy world, and see no reflection of its Creator.
Good stuff, huh? Far cry from the stuff on this forum.
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.
While some folk have tried to equate my use of "you must first love yourself" as self-esteem, I believe that it is actually quite different and is reflected in what Lewis said.
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.
I don't think that's what he means at all, at least as far as I can judge from that one paragraph. He starts out emphasizing his own belief in God, and from that vantage what he sees is a world that doesn't reflect God as he does, a world that denies God's existence, not a world truly bereft of God, not mere accident. But maybe I'm misreading the passage. Maybe more context would tell me otherwise.
Yes, it's taken out of context. He's working up to talk about the Fall.
The Padre that accompanied the Conquistadores and that burned the Codices did it for what they saw as the best of reasons, saving souls. This refrain has been repeated time after time and over issue after issue. It is only later, when we look back on the sermons written on how to civilize the savage, what the place of the Blackman in society is, on the terrible wrong we did in destroying cultures and beliefs that we realize how wrong we were.
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?
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.
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.