Are John Milbank and posters here to keep pushing Christianity as "the new counter culture" trying to hijack socialism from atheists because they know it's going to become relevant again? Basically they want to piggyback on socialism to make Christianity relevant again as well?

File: 14 KB, 225x225, 1433353333457.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 17:31:46 2015 No.6634645 [Reply] [Original]

Are John Milbank and posters here to keep pushing Christianity as "the new counter culture" trying to hijack socialism from atheists because they know it's going to become relevant again? Basically they want to piggyback on socialism to make Christianity relevant again as well?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 17:33:06 2015 No.6634647 >>6634645 >Basically they want to piggyback on socialism to make Christianity relevant again as well? >accusing others of immoral actions >all that resentiment Fuck off, christian

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 17:36:02 2015 No.6634662 >>6634645 Yes, pretty much. They also make the false assumptions that non-secular culture is now more relevant since secular ideas have been undermined by late capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 17:38:24 2015 No.6634670 >>6634647 Uh, I'm not a xtian.... >>6634662 When in fact it is less relevant since religion is no longer required to keep the working class in line

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 17:50:08 2015 No.6634707 >>6634647 Uh, I'm not a xtian.... >>6634662 When in fact it is less relevant since religion is no longer required to keep the working class in line

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 17:52:28 2015 No.6634718 >>6634645 >they know it's going to become relevant again? lmfao

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 17:53:02 2015 No.6634722 File: 141 KB, 1280x720, summer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6634707 >Uh, I'm not a xtian....

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 17:53:59 2015 No.6634725 >>6634662 >late capitalism. It's fucking hilarious how modern marxists have integrated their wishful thinking into their language.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:06:05 2015 No.6634771

I don't see how socialism is any better than capitalism at promoting Christianity. If anything, socialism retards the growth of Christendom by substituting the State for the Church in providing basic needs.

You'd need a kind of Christian communism, a communism rooted in adherence to Christ, to really change things anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:12:12 2015 No.6634797 >>6634771 Milbank says the liberal worldview hings on state/market dichotomy for solving problems.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:13:22 2015 No.6634802
File: 1.92 MB, 300x225, 1432781572160.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6634645
>Christianity is dying its still the biggest religion in the world and still funds an entire country b-but i heard some magazine say church attendance is down.
>s-socialism is atheist, ignore all the missionary work for hundreds of years. . . i worked at a soup kitchen once, it was a christian soup kitchen but that's besides the point.
>i don't hate gays so I'm morally buoyant in my contribution to the world already; sure i have not fought for any gay rights or done any activism, but when i see a news story about some ultra consrevaticve hate group i make sure to post on my facebook something like: "oh look at our supposed moral leaders" to let people know that "religion" isn't all its cracked up to be.
>i know i'm on the "right side of history"
>morality can exist without god. s-sience or something guys

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:20:39 2015 No.6634828 >>6634645 To believe in morality is to be religious. There is no secular morality except for moral relativism, wich is either no morality at all or the belief that subjective yet absolute standards exist, the latter being religious existentialism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:23:49 2015 No.6634837 >>6634802 morality definitely exists without god, and it has nothing to do with science, lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:24:37 2015 No.6634839 >>6634837 moral atheists are possible the most delusional of all people to ever live.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:25:34 2015 No.6634846 >>6634837 No it doesn't, you have nothing to deduce from.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:28:48 2015 No.6634854 File: 120 KB, 800x509, 223.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Christianity >socialism >morals >god BUSTING THIS SPOOK

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:30:26 2015 No.6634861 >>6634854 I curse the day Stirner became popular here. What a bunch of absolute shite.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:32:28 2015 No.6634866 File: 88 KB, 426x640, God rod bod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6634828 >To believe in morality is to be religious. >There is no secular morality Nah

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:35:11 2015 No.6634872 >>6634861 You're a big ego

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:35:52 2015 No.6634876 >>6634839 >>6634846 >>6634828 virtue ethics humanism utilitarianism categorical imperative ethical egoism ethical naturalism social contract >Euthyphro >Theodicy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:36:50 2015 No.6634881 >>6634846 >you have nothing to deduce from. Experience, instincts, and reasoning do the job well enough which is why you see strong moral codes among people that don't believe in the god of the big three religions or any grand god at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:37:53 2015 No.6634887 >>6634839 >>6634846 >what is moral realism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:41:14 2015 No.6634898 >>6634866 prove me wrong tho thats right

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:41:29 2015 No.6634899 File: 134 KB, 447x841, 1405721890683.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6634872

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:45:30 2015 No.6634917

>>6634876
All of those stand on premises that we have no reason to accept unless we say that they are absolute or axiomatic. When we do that we say that there is something transcendental and absolute, which is god.

>>6634881
I need only ask: Why is it that we should obey our instincts. And I've proven that you deduced it from something transcendental and absolute.
>>6634887
It is a religious doctrine is what it is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:49:01 2015 No.6634929 >>6634645 I dunno, man. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist hermeticist.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:49:58 2015 No.6634934

>>6634917
>When we do that we say that there is something transcendental and absolute, which is god.
No we don't unless you expand the concept of "god" to the point it loses meaning.

>All of those stand on premises that we have no reason to accept unless we say that they are absolute or axiomatic.
We also have no reason to accept there is a single creator god or that all morality flows from him.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:50:48 2015 No.6634937 >>6634917 The social contract, as Hobbes put it, is a mutual agreement to not kill each other. The reason to accept it is because it benefits all the contractees.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:51:37 2015 No.6634941 >>6634771 Yeah, and that's what the USA wants. Socialism run by republicans. Church AND state is powerful tool to wield on idiots who believe them. It's also funny that atheism is objectively true for obvious reasons.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:55:11 2015 No.6634951

>>6634934
>God is a man in the clouds and there are no men in the clouds, therefore god does not exist.

Nice strawman, what do you think god means? Any sophisticated conception of god is reducible to something transcendental and absolute.

>We also have no reason to accept there is a single creator god or that all morality flows from him.
No, we have to accept that there is either something transcendental and absolute, or there is no morality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:56:24 2015 No.6634955 >>6634937 Why is it moral to benefit all contractees?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:57:04 2015 No.6634957 >>6634955 Because it increases their wellbeing

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:58:50 2015 No.6634961 >>6634957 Okay, and why should that be a moral axiom? That is, what makes it moral to increase the wellbeing of the contractees.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 18:59:54 2015 No.6634964 >>6634961 Because each individual values her own life

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:01:11 2015 No.6634967

>>6634951
>Nice strawman, what do you think god means?
Depends on the religion in question. "Sophisticated" concepts of god vary wildly.

>No, we have to accept that there is either something transcendental and absolute, or there is no morality.
No this is a intellectual copout made to try to herd all your opponents into a corner so you can have a monopoly on "truth".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:02:40 2015 No.6634974 >>6634967 Not that anon, but they really are in that corner. It's why atheism is philosophically ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:03:06 2015 No.6634977 >>6634964 So what you're saying is that what each individual values constitutes morality, what makes it so?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:03:11 2015 No.6634978 >>6634645 This has to be a troll. Religion was literally hijacked by morality. Why would you post here before reading stirner anyway, I thought that was an understood prerequisite.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:03:52 2015 No.6634983 Socialism and Christianity don't mix, compulsory virtue isn't virtue at all. >>6634876 All arbitrary and unquantifiable, and thereby irrelevant, without an absolute God.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:04:20 2015 No.6634986

No objective grounding = muh feelings

Granted this doesn't mean we should all descend to roaving bands of asshole apes. There might be a way to take a muh feelings approach to life and make it seem less irrational or absurd than it is by defintion but it is what is.

Why do atheists refuse to take note that the only logical conclusion of atheism is hard nihilism?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:04:31 2015 No.6634987 >>6634974 How? The only objection I've heard is the "without god you get only relativism" followed by the person in question demonstrating they have no idea what relativism is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:05:57 2015 No.6634995 >>6634977 Because that's how it is defined. Morality in this example, a social contract variation, means respecting the values of a collection of individuals while minimizing potential friction between those values.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:06:46 2015 No.6634999 >>6634983 Tell Jesus socialism and Christianity do not mix

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:06:58 2015 No.6635002 >>6634983 The selection of any particular variation of God from the myriads of religions is, in itself, arbitrary.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:08:09 2015 No.6635009

>>6634881
They have no moral code, it's all arbitrary.
>>6634964
But why should that a moral axiom?
>>6634967
>No this is a intellectual copout made to try to herd all your opponents into a corner so you can have a monopoly on "truth".
Because you said so?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:08:29 2015 No.6635012 >>6634986 "Muh feelings" can be separated into higher-order and lower-order desires. For example where the high-order desire for a stable society in which to raise your children overrides the low-order desire for 24/7 anonymous sex

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:12:49 2015 No.6635025

>>6635009
>They have no moral code
virtue ethics
humanism
utilitarianism
categorical imperative
ethical egoism
ethical naturalism
social contract
relational ethics

>But why should that a moral axiom?
Because that's what the social contract is founded on, like how Euclidean geometry is founded on a line being straight. Are you asking why individuals might choose to form a social contract? Because it benefits them, of course.

>Because you said so?
He did say that, yeah. In fact, you're just saying what you're saying, and so am I. We're all communicating in language here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:13:38 2015 No.6635029 >>6634999 He didn't preach socialism, though. >>6635002 Not at all

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:13:48 2015 No.6635031

>>6634967
Look, God is just a metaphysical entity. If we grant that there is something transcendental and absolute (and we'll get to why it is so) we grant that there are metaphysical entities that can carry morality.

Now to say that this metaphysical entity is separate from god is non-sensical, by what condition can we separate a metaphysical entity? None, this is why it is meaningless to say that there is a transcendental something but it is not god.

>No this is a intellectual copout made to try to herd all your opponents into a corner so you can have a monopoly on "truth"

Absolute morality is just that, a monopoly on moral truth. Would not a proponent of utilitarianism claim to have a monopoly of truth? Then it would follow that the utilitarian believes in something absolute and transcendental.

So there is no distinction between secular morality and religious morality. How can we say one is just doctrinial and claim the other is the bonafide, peer-reviewed, state-sanctioned, science-backed morality of moralities. It is nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:14:20 2015 No.6635034 >>6635029 >Not at all Explain

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:15:19 2015 No.6635041 clarke was a pedophile

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:15:21 2015 No.6635043 >>6635029 >He didn't preach socialism, though. Church fathers did

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:15:22 2015 No.6635044 >>6634986 >muh feelings I know people love using this as a insult but in cognitive science those dreaded "feelings" shape and direct human thought before conscious appraisal even begins so we are already taking a "muh feelings" approach to life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:16:35 2015 No.6635055 >>6635044 Your average 4chan ape doesn't realise that without muh emotions they wouldn't even be here

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:17:53 2015 No.6635063 >>6635041 Fun fact: the bible has several verses explicitly condemning homosexuality but is completely silent on pedophilia Clarke is A-OK in God's book

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:19:27 2015 No.6635071 >>6635044 Early Church would probably lump it all into the same group like the Greeks did.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:19:34 2015 No.6635072 >>6635063 so what, the greeks were kid fuckers too but lit jerks off to them all the time

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:26:08 2015 No.6635097 >>6635034 It's based on faith and reasoning, something cannot be arbitrary if it based on an absolute, empirical, or transcendental bit of reason. It can be wrong, but not arbitrary. >>6635041 So am I you bigot. >>6635043 The are not God.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:31:57 2015 No.6635123

>>6635097
>It's based on faith and reasoning, something cannot be arbitrary if it based on an absolute, empirical, or transcendental bit of reason.
>
>It can be wrong, but not arbitrary.
Ok, well, most of the list of secular moralities you just decryed as arbitrary are also based on absolute/empirical reasoning. Can't have it both ways.

>The [church fathers] are not God.
So you don't believe that God approved of the early church? Their socialist commune was described positively in the Bible. God even struck a member dead for lying about keeping some money for his wife and himself. Is your God not the God of the Bible? A deist maybe?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:32:09 2015 No.6635124 >>6635031 >Would not a proponent of utilitarianism claim to have a monopoly of truth? Some but among both the religious and secular people have drawn on or combined multiple types of ethical systems should one not be able to justify their desires.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:37:30 2015 No.6635138 >>6635124 It is not contradictory to say that morality is absolute but different for different people. Because then "morality is absolute but different for different people." is absolute.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:39:01 2015 No.6635143 >>6635097 faith is literally just accepting something as true because you feel like it it's the most arbitrary thing in the world

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:42:26 2015 No.6635148
File: 329 KB, 1274x1700, Nietzsche1882.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Look at all this quisling Kantians scurrying about.

If God isn't real the only correct moral philosopher is Nietzsche. The categorical imperative and everything like it has been thoroughly BTFO.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:45:51 2015 No.6635161

>>6635138
I question how absolute it is for different people being that if you thought your system of morality was the end all you wouldn't draw on other systems and at times the "absolutists" or people who calm to be have strange periods of leniency or times where said absolutist belief system turns out not to be so absolute at all in certain places.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:46:07 2015 No.6635163

>>6635123
>Ok, well, most of the list of secular moralities you just decryed as arbitrary are also based on absolute/empirical reasoning.
The acceptance of an idea is a bit different from morality.

They can have morals, but ultimately religion holds the monopoly on morality because it is from an absolute source, not based off of one.

Morality can't be empirical, it's transcendental.
A transcendental system based off of transcendental reasoning isn't sound, it cannot be quantified because it is ungraspable or observable.

The only non-arbitrary morality is based on an absolute source.
>Their socialist commune was described positively in the Bible.
Socialism is the transition from one system to Marx's communist utopia. As I said, compulsory virtue isn't virtue.

Charity is virtuous, paying an agreed upon alimony payment isn't because there is little free will involve
>>6635143
Not in a religious context.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:51:34 2015 No.6635175 >>6635163 There are no absolute sources in the world because the selection from candidate absolute sources is arbitrary and depends on the person making the selection

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:52:36 2015 No.6635179 >>6635175 God.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:52:52 2015 No.6635180 >>6635163 The religious context is fooling yourself into believing that your arbitrary choice was actually initiated by God There's no real difference

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:52:53 2015 No.6635181 File: 49 KB, 170x268, 1426806622467.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6634802

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:54:07 2015 No.6635184

>>6635163
>ultimately religion holds the monopoly on morality because it is from an absolute source, not based off of one.
If it was absolute we wouldn't have so many different sects in the same religion with many condemning or contradicting each other and would instead have a grand consensus.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:55:38 2015 No.6635193 File: 42 KB, 305x278, tim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6635179 Your arbitrarily selected God? Why not Joe's arbitrarily selected God? Or Ahmed's arbitrarily selected God?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:58:18 2015 No.6635202 File: 27 KB, 447x444, 1427218055517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6634941 >It's also funny that atheism is objectively true for obvious reasons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 19:59:54 2015 No.6635210 >>6634999 Am I on reddit?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:00:00 2015 No.6635211 didn't read the whole thread but u all need revolutionary catholic council communism

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:19:28 2015 No.6635278

Alfred North Whitehead

>It is my purpose in the four lectures of this course to consider the type of justification which is available for belief in doctrines of religion. This is a question which in some new form challenges each generation. It is the peculiarity of religion that humanity is always shifting its attitude towards it.

>The contrast between religion and the elementary truths of arithmetic makes my meaning clear. Ages ago the simple arithmetical doctrines dawned on the human mind, and throughout history the unquestioned dogma that two and three make five reigned whenever it has been relevant. We all know what this doctrine means, and its history is of no importance for its elucidation.

>But we have the gravest doubt as to what religion means so far as doctrine is concerned. There is no agreement as to the definition of religion in its most general sense, including true and false religion; nor is there any agreement as to the valid religious beliefs, nor even as to what we mean by the truth of religion. It is for this reason that some consideration of religion as an unquestioned factor throughout the long stretch of human history is necessary to secure the relevance of any discussion of its general principles.

>There is yet another contrast. What is generally disputed is doubtful, and what is doubtful is relatively unimportant-other things being equal. I am speaking of general truths. We avoid guiding our actions by general principles which are entirely unsettled. If we do not know what number is the product of 69 and 67, we defer any action presupposing the answer, till we have found out. This little arithmetical puzzle can be put aside till it is settled, and it is capable of definite settlement with adequate trouble.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:20:32 2015 No.6635283

>>6635278
>But as between religion and arithmetic, other things are not equal. You use arithmetic, but you are religious. Arithmetic of course enters into your nature, so far as that nature involves a multiplicity of things. But it is there as a necessary condition, and not as a transforming agency. No one is invariably "justified" by his faith in the multiplication table. But in some sense or other, justification is the basis of all religion. Your character is developed according to your faith. This is the primary religious truth from which no one can escape. Religion is force of belief cleansing the inward parts. For this reason the primary religious virtue is sincerity, a penetrating sincerity.

>A religion, on its doctrinal side, can thus be defined as a system of general truths which have the effect of transforming character when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended.

>In the long run your character and your conduct of life depend upon your intimate convictions. Life is an internal fact for its own sake, before it is an external fact relating itself to others. The conduct of external life is conditioned by environment, but it receives its final quality, on which its worth depends, from the internal life which is the self-realisation of existence. Religion is the art and the theory of the internal life of man, so far as it depends on the man himself and on what is permanent in the nature of things.

>This doctrine is the direct negation of the theory that religion is primarily a social fact. Social facts are of great importance to religion, because there is no such thing as absolutely independent existence. You cannot abstract society from man; most psychology is herd- psychology. But all collective emotions leave untouched the awful ultimate fact, which is the human being, consciously alone with itself, for its own sake.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:21:18 2015 No.6635288
File: 83 KB, 758x591, 1373813964000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6635202
God cannot exist because existence itself is a human concept produced by language which God is beyond, or outside of, if you will. This also means that God is not God because God, like existence, is a human conception constituted by language which can never successfully capture the essence of what it seeks to confine.

That's per Plotinus, anyway. If you're dumb-tier Christian, no that God isn't real. The myth of Jesus is probably the height of anthropocentric vanity. Abrahamic religions are the worst.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:21:38 2015 No.6635291

>>6635283
>Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness. It runs through three stages, if it evolves to its final satisfaction. It is the transition from God the void to God the enemy, and from God the enemy to God the companion.

>Thus religion is solitariness; and if you are never solitary, you are never religious. Collective enthusiasms, revivals, institutions, churches, rituals, bibles, codes of behaviour, are the trappings of religion, its passing forms.

>They may be useful, or harmful; they may be authoritatively ordained, or merely temporary expedients. But the end of religion is beyond all this.

>Accordingly, what should emerge from religion is individual worth of character. But worth is positive or negative, good or bad. Religion is by no means necessarily good. It may be very evil. The fact of evil, interwoven with the texture of the world, shows that in the nature of things there remains effectiveness for degradation. In your religious experience the God with whom you have made terms may be the God of destruction, the God who leaves in his wake the loss of the greater reality.

>In considering religion, we should not be obsessed by the idea of its necessary goodness. This is a dangerous delusion. The point to notice is its transcendent importance; and the fact of this importance is abundantly made evident by the appeal to history.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:23:27 2015 No.6635300 >>6635184 People tend to stray from theory. >>6635193 You're beyond help. >>6635288 >god doesn't exist because feelings

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:24:51 2015 No.6635304 >>6635288 What about John Milbank? He's practically masturbates to Plontius, and thinks univocity of being is cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univocity_of_being

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:25:52 2015 No.6635309 >>6635304 *Plontinus Though he likes Proclus even more

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:26:33 2015 No.6635313 >>6635278 >>6635283 >>6635291 Just read the whole thing here http://www.mountainman.com.au/whiteh_1.htm To much of a pain in the ass to post the whole thing.

>>	Jetfire Wed Jun 3 20:28:07 2015 No.6635322 >>6635288 >anthropocentric Why does this word function as an insult? Of course humans are anthropocentric. It would be pathologically awful if they were not.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:28:53 2015 No.6635327

>>6635300
>god doesn't exist because feelings

That's almost the exact opposite of what I was saying, or what Plotinus said. It's a defense of a transcendental principle - it's just that we can never possibly define it, especially via anthropocentric mythmaking.

Read what I said again. Slower.

>>6635304
I'll read this. I've actually never heard of Milbank before or what he's up to. I'm of course skeptical of any Christian attempt at co-opting socialism - even socialist praise of Saint Oscar Romero.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:31:27 2015 No.6635342

>>6635327
>l read this. I've actually never heard of Milbank before or what he's up to. I'm of course skeptical of any Christian attempt at co-opting socialism - even socialist praise of Saint Oscar Romero.
Wasn't Thomas Moore the first person to write a socialist treatise?

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:32:22 2015 No.6635347

>>6635322
Not every human conception of a 'higher power' (itself a term which curiously avoids personification) is anthropocentric. Serious theology (with the exception of the Abrahamic and Hindu faiths) tend to avoid the ridiculous assumption that God looks like a human or "looks like" anything at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:33:28 2015 No.6635352 >>6635347 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:34:20 2015 No.6635356

>>6635342
He wrote one of the first "utopian" treatises in the contemporary understanding of that word. He was certainly an inspiration for Karl Marx, and perhaps more so for the great Ernst Bloch.

His utopia is not socialist, however, at least if we understand socialism as a historically specific phenomenon which can only possibly take place in a post-industrial society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:36:26 2015 No.6635366 >>6635352 I really think you need to read over my comments more slowly. Or at least google Plotinus or something. I'm not making atheist arguments.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:36:41 2015 No.6635368 >>6634647 >I READ A BOOK BY NIETZSCHE ONCE

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:42:46 2015 No.6635394

>>6635356
He invented the term "utopia", so of course

Milbank doesn't accept socialism as that, which is where Milbank disagrees with Marx. He says the idea that capitalism is a necessary stage of progress is a totally liberal idea, and that it would actually have been easier to go directly from feudalism to socialism without capitalism, by giving the serfs control of the land democratizing the guilds. He says the advent of wage labor actually made socialism more of an abstract idea to the public,which is what led to so many different ideas of how it would work, from people thinking socialism would work. As such, Milbank wishes to reexamine a lot of the liberal ideas Marx takes for granted as true. Milbank actually considers the advent of univocity of being, through Duns Scotus, to be the root of liberal thought, and traces its effects in philosophy, political science, and political economics. Milbank says Marx offered the best critique of secular society that secularism could provide, but that he was still too informed by liberalism.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:47:06 2015 No.6635409

>>6635304
So the problem with that theory, at least in terms of my understanding of Plotinus, is that yes - "when one says that "God is good", God's goodness is only analogous to human goodness," however, this does not mean that "God only differs from us in degree, and properties such as goodness, power, reason, and so forth are "univocally" applied, regardless of whether one is talking about God, a man, or a flea." It is the latter point that Plotinus, and I'm assuming Milbank would take issue with.

Language, and the concepts that language produces, are wholly insufficient when it comes to God. We speak of God analogously because we must, there is no other option open to us except silence (cf. The Cloud of Unknowing). This does not mean that 'God' conforms to our limitations. To assume 'He' must is blasphemous, frankly.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:47:22 2015 No.6635411

>>6635394
Oh, as for the idea that communism failed in a lot of places because they hadn't gone through the capitalist stage, Milbank asserts that it was because they tried to use the state to go through the capitalist stage, they were still thinking in liberal terms rather than in socialist terms. Milbank says socialism is more properly thought of as alternate modernity, rather than a development of liberal modernity

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:48:06 2015 No.6635413 >>6635161 >strange periods of leniency I would suggest that a person can act in contradiction to his own morals, without it affecting his morals.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:51:25 2015 No.6635426

>>6635409
Right, which is why Milbank dislikes Duns Scotus. "Radical Orthodoxy" here means that, the idea that theology's orthodoxy was impaired as far back as Scotus, and that strain has been contaminating it as well as the rest of Western thought. But rather than try to simply "roll back" Western thought, Milbank is trying to look at an alternative development without Scotist contamination.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 20:54:32 2015 No.6635441

>>6635394
Oooo, that sounds really interesting actually I'll have to read more. Is there a single work Milbank is famous for?

In some ways Milbank might be justified with the initial success of the CCP in China. Mao basically ignored the fledgling urban working class since China was semi-feudal at the time and revolutionized the agrarian masses. The Soviets were pissed because the Chinese were "skipping" the essential step of industrialization. Of course, China did rapidly industrialize after the CCP's successful takeover in order to become 'truly socialist.'

I wonder - does Milbank argue for de-industrialization? Even if he is correct in arguing socialist transition would have been easier in Christian feudal Europe (something I'm interested in reading about), those material conditions are pretty irretrievable now. What is his response to late capitalism?

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 21:02:15 2015 No.6635474

>>6635441
His main work is Theology and Social Theory, which is where he lays out his theory of the origins or (liberal) modernity, and how other thinkers were unknowingly influenced by it, and how it radically reshaped Christian ontology.

Milbank is careful about de-industrialization because he says that can easily become a reactionary movement, and notes that Heidegger, for instance, cannot be separated from his political thought. On the other hand, he says there is a bright side to industrialization, in that the family, community and church now have the greatest potential to become spaces outside the market or the state, which he sees working hand-in-hand. In pre-industrial society, it was harder for these to be revolutionary spaces, but he says they have that sort of potential now so long as we don't fall into bourgeois ideas of families (as Milbank points out, for instance, marriages used to be more than between two people, but between two families: once that served as a power structure, but now it could form a network of solidarity, whereas a marriage between just two people really can't).

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 21:09:24 2015 No.6635505 >>6635474 Thanks, anon. Just ordered the book. Have a research project to finish over the coming weeks but this will be great August reading. I fluctuate between my Catholicism and my Marxism and hopefully this will aggravate that confusion, lol.

Anonymous Wed Jun 3 21:12:56 2015 No.6635513

>>6635505
Yes, it probably will. You might also want to get The Monstrosity of Christ, which is a debate between Milbank and Zizek, Zizek being sympathetic to Christianity as an element of revolution, but more as a legacy than actuality, and Milbank contending the important of actual Christianity and theology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 3 21:14:34 2015 No.6635518 >>6635513 And there's also that Zizek is has a more Protestant idea of Christianity, whereas Milbank is saying that Protestantism is inextricably tied up with liberal modernity.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 00:46:42 2015 No.6636405

There is nothing wrong with religion, Monotheism however, particularly abrahamic monotheism, is poisonous and the fact that even modern western values are based on Protestantism is the cause of most of our modern problems.

Our only hope is that Catholicism continues it's mutation into a goddess worshiping ancestor cult, possibly absorbing socialism in the process.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 00:54:27 2015 No.6636447

>>6636405
>Christian morals so degenerate.
>2015
>honoring thy father
>doing unto others as you would have them do unto you
>Loving your neighbour
>ishiggydiggydit

Modern western values are precisely not based on religion, traditional values are. Or rather religion is based on traditional values.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:18:01 2015 No.6636550

>>6636447
Those values exist in other religions. Pretty much anything good from Christianity was adopted from pagans. When I talk about the poisonous christian values, I'm talking about Calvinism and the Protestant work ethic, responsible for both capitalism and communism, and the idea that there is only one absolute and any other viewpoints are heretical. This ironically, is the root of new atheism and scienceism. They basically preach Calvinism in all but name.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:21:27 2015 No.6636561 >>6636550 >Pretty much anything good from Christianity was adopted from pagans Do you even Faith, Hope, and Love?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:26:52 2015 No.6636577 >>6634645 Christposting will actually probably end up killing this board completely, because it makes people like >>6636558 think he belongs here. It's about to get a lot worse, since you guys do nothing to stop it.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:33:31 2015 No.6636600

>>6634839
>>6634846
Whether or not god is real has nothing to do with morality. Whether or not god exists would not change reality or truth about anything not regarding god itself or its relationship to the world - not anything about the world itself. Therefore any truth is still a truth regardless of god.

Also, the fact that you value think morality disappears without god and choose god because you like morality is evidence that human beings value morality. If you were an atheist, you would be a moral atheist.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:38:23 2015 No.6636612

>>6636561
All those things can be found in other cultures. Abrahamism however perverts them.

Christian "Love" is what makes a father abuse his children. Christian hope is what keeps people working dead end jobs happily serving their masters, and christian faith is the blind rejection of thought.

The fact that such twisted values claim a monopoly on righteousness and morality is the reason evil looks so attractive today. The true degeneracy is how Christianity has degenerated the concept of love to a meaningless word.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:39:46 2015 No.6636617 File: 503 KB, 500x667, nietzsche stirner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6634899 >implying they can't coexist

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:42:21 2015 No.6636623 >>6636550 You need to read kierkegaard. And I'm a Calvinist, what is your objection?

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:45:53 2015 No.6636632

>>6634866
>>6634876
Yeah sure, there's secular morality. Doing good for the sake of people liking you and thus making things easy for you. But what about when there's no chance of you being caught? If its purely tit for tat, if all that matters is mundane reward, why not steal when you can get away with it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:50:10 2015 No.6636639 >>6636623 Kierkegaard a shit. And how does it feel to know your philosophy is responsible for all the evils of capitalism and communism? Does love make people work 18 hour days in a factory making T-shirts?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:50:41 2015 No.6636642 >>6636617 Socrates mirin, Aristotle telling Nietzsche to stay on the ground, hegel observing and predicting how it will end. perfect

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:51:44 2015 No.6636645 >>6636623 Milbank points out the Kierkegaard's way of thought was actually much more Catholic than Protestant, which is why he disagreed so strongly with the highly Protestant Hegel

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 01:57:36 2015 No.6636657

>>6636639
>And how does it feel to know your philosophy is responsible for all the evils of capitalism and communism?

It's not.

>And how does it feel to know your philosophy is responsible for all the evils of capitalism and communism?

No, immorality of those in power along with the massive rise in human population make for an overly industrialised and materialistic world. You need only read the bible to understand that it is patently anti-materialistic.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:04:49 2015 No.6636672

>>6636645
He was against the sort of economic style of Christianity were if you scratch god's back he'll scratch yours. He believed in a personal always despairing faith "work out your salvation in fear and trembling".

Calvinism abolishes the economic style of worship through the doctrine of predestination, this is partly why I believe it is closer to Kierkegaard than Catholicisism or Lutheranism.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:06:02 2015 No.6636677

>>6636657
The Protestant work ethic is the cause of this immoral materialism, it made a virtue out of accumulation of wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth. People thought (and in a way still do) they were building the kingdom of heaven on earth. As time went on, we just got so used to it we forgot how it started.

And yes it is in contradiction to what Jesus taught. Just like how Islam is a religion of Peace except when it's flying planes into buildings.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:08:36 2015 No.6636686 File: 208 KB, 1255x616, 1432168034471.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6636670 Have you read this article? You might like it http://theotherjournal.com/2005/04/04/theology-and-capitalism-an-interview-with-john-milbank/

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:14:54 2015 No.6636704

>>6636670
Yeah it's a contradiction to what Jesus taught. So what support does it have. What support does the notion have in Protestant theology?

You're like a bad Scientist "alot of protestant countries are capitalist therefore protestantism is capitalist". Arguably Jews are wealthier than protestants, where do they get their work ethic? Atleast there we can hypothesize zionism as a cause if we want to be the kind of people who jump to conclusions.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:15:19 2015 No.6636707

>>6636677
>>6636686

>>6636672
Calvinists don't believe in predestination any more.

The Church of Denmark in Kierkegaard's time was basically Catholic in everything but the Pope.

Kierkegaard's conception of ontology being totally transformed by theology is not Protestant. Protestantism is ontology transforming theology.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:15:57 2015 No.6636709 >>6636704 this if for >>6636677

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:19:54 2015 No.6636715

>>6636704
Protestant theology is limited to the Scotist notion of univocity of being, it s branch of the theological foundations of secular liberalism. Not all Protestants are capitalistic (see the Hickside Quaker schism), but Protestant theology is part of the same tradition, the same core of thought that produced liberals and capitalism; it is the theological counterpart of these. This is why Luther gave "goods and services" immunity from theology.

See OUTIS' summary here >>/lit/thread/S6602227

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:20:30 2015 No.6636716

>>6636707
If they no longer believe in predestination (I think it's a legitimate conclusion to reach if you accept the existence of the abrahamic god, which is why I'm against abrahamism.) then how are you a Calvinist? What else is there to define Calvanism?

And even if they no longer believe in that. Do you deny the role the Protestant work Ethic played in the creation of modern capitalism and industrialism, and by extension Communism?

Toil for toil's sake is not something that should be glorified.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:22:23 2015 No.6636721

>>6636707
>The Church of Denmark in Kierkegaard's time was basically Catholic in everything but the Pope.

And he criticised it for the exact sort of "haggling with god".

>Calvinists don't believe in predestination any more.
It follows from the five tenets and John Calvin stressed the absolute sovereignty of god.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:26:12 2015 No.6636730 File: 40 KB, 520x510, Friedrich_Von_Hayek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6634645 >One of the greatest tragedies in mankind's history may be that economics was hijacked by political philosophy. -- Thomas Sowell

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:27:13 2015 No.6636732

>>6636716
I'm this poster

>>6636715
>>6636686
>>6636645
I'm not a Calvinist

>>6636721
I don't like Indulgences either, there's a lot more to Catholicism than that.

You're literally the first Calvinist I've met who believes in Predestination. Which church are you a part of?

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:35:40 2015 No.6636755

>>6636716
This is not me
>>6636715
What even is the theological foundation of secular liberalism? Protestantism stands for the bible being the only source of authority. Again, what do you mean when you say Luther gave goods and services ummunity from theology? He certainly wanted to separate the church from the economy and he saw practices such as the sale of indulgances where you could buy yourself free from sin as a heresy. But it does not follow that he paved the way for capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:37:03 2015 No.6636759 >>6636755 The thread I linked answers literally every one of your questions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:39:08 2015 No.6636764 >>6636759 Oh, and univocity of being was instrumental in the development of secularism and Protestantism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:41:44 2015 No.6636769 >>6636732 Which church are you a part of? Non-state church in Sweden. You should note though that predestination is philosophically problematic concept, it's meaning is not exactly straightforward, neither is it's relation to free will.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:45:50 2015 No.6636779 >>6636769 Episcopal

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 02:58:44 2015 No.6636806 The idea of predestination is pretty problematic. Though, (I assume) it means that the people born into grace are doing good just because it comes naturally to them. They aren't just faking virtue for the sake of winning GBP with God. I like that idea.

Thomas !!2DZ1MGd6kEU Thu Jun 4 03:05:21 2015 No.6636818

>>6636577
Why don't I belong here?

>>6636779
Friend!

>>6636806
Protestants don't believe works can get you into heaven or score points with God.

Catholics know that all true virtue is allowing the Holy Ghost in. If you are letting the Holy Ghost's will take hold, you cannot be doing it for the sake of GBP

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 03:11:40 2015 No.6636832

>>6636759
Missed it, now I see what you mean.

The biggest problem is that no genuinely believing protestant could employ immoral business practices, simply because these things were not preached. What was preached was the bible.

It's also an assumption to say that theology drove economic forces and not the other way around. There were unregulated economic forces before the birth of Martin Luther. I mean, what is the thesis, that Martin Luther invented capitalism without external influence?

I have never denied that the protestant work ethic may have affected the progress of capitalism, but it is a different claim to say that the protestant work ethic is immoral. That would be like saying the organisational skills of the german people are immoral because they benefitted the army of the third reich.

The protestant work ethic is about hard work and frugality, you will have a hard time construing it as the systematic exploitation of the working class or whatever is your ideological imperative.

Anonymous Thu Jun 4 03:15:06 2015 No.6636842

>>6636818
Hello

>>6636832
I guess you don't get that the change in dominum and things like univocity of being started quite a while before Luther. Lutheranism is a product of them, is what John Milbank was saying. Protestantism, capitalism and liberalism are all just symptoms.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 03:17:43 2015 No.6636844 >>6636842 Did you not say that protestant work ethic was the cause of immoral materialism? Because it seems that you have recanted that now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 03:25:37 2015 No.6636858 >>6634987 And hats, don't forget the hats

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 03:27:18 2015 No.6636860 >>6634802 >if I greentext strawmen they automatically become true

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 03:38:20 2015 No.6636895 >>6636844 No, I wasn't that guy. I was partially agreeing with him, but I wasn't him I posted here >>6636686

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 03:57:08 2015 No.6636932 >>6636860 It's decent shitpost since that is what fedoras think and OPs post is clearly a fedora bait.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 03:59:52 2015 No.6636938 >>6636895 I see.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 4 04:20:30 2015 No.6636977 >>6635368 I've never seen someone miss the point of a post completely. Ironically, what you posted described only yourself, as you seem to have seen a buzzword and spazzed out.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature