Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Remember that they killed Socrates.

It is also equally possible to say ... he killed himself. (But I get your point).

Both of these perspectives also point at Jesus. Jesus and Socrates both had integrity . To what were they both faithful unto death ?

Socrates claimed he was dying for the State, by which he meant "Athens," in particular. I don't know if we are to believe him about that. Maybe. However, we're not even sure Socrates existed. There are still some who think he was a fictive creation of Plato's. Assuming he did exist, though, he claimed he died for the State.

Jesus Christ died for everyone. And in particular, for you.

[Belinda]

It is also equally possible to say ... he killed himself. (But I get your point).

Both of these perspectives also point at Jesus. Jesus and Socrates both had integrity . To what were they both faithful unto death ?

Socrates claimed he was dying for the State, by which he meant "Athens," in particular. I don't know if we are to believe him about that. Maybe. However, we're not even sure Socrates existed. There are still some who think he was a fictive creation of Plato's. Assuming he did exist, though, he claimed he died for the State.

Jesus Christ died for everyone. And in particular, for you.

I did not say JesusChrist I said Jesus. If you could stop your preaching and be philosophical you would help this conversation.

[Lacewing]

For the sake of a further definition, I quote here Pierre Krebs who wrote Fighting for the Essence:

"...our task is to oppose the egalitarian ethos and egalitarian socio-economic thinking with a world-view based on differentiation: this means an ethic and a socio-economic theory which respects the right to be different. We want to create the system of values and attitudes necessary for gaining control of cultural power. Our strategy is dictated neither by the immediate contingencies of reality nor the superficial upheavals of political life. We are not interested in political factions but in attitudes to life... What motivates us and what we are striving for does cannot be accommodated within the activities of a political party, but - and we insist on this point - solely within the framework of a metapolitical, exclusively cultural project. A programme which sets out once again to make us conscious of our identity through awakening the memory of our future, as it were. In this way we aim to prepare the ground for what is to come... The tragedy of the contemporary world is the tragedy of disloyalty: the uprooting of every culture, estrangement from our true natures, the atomization of man, the levelling of values, the uniformity of life. A critical and exhaustive engagement with modern knowledge - from philosophy to ethology, from anthropology to sociology, from the natural sciences to history and educational theory - if carried out with the appropriate intellectual rigour and sound empirical methodology, can only contribute to throwing light on the general confusion of the world."

That's interesting -- it is expressed artfully -- and I can see some glimmers in facets of truth. Yet, it reminds me of how man can keep re-defining, wrestling, and striving for control in one direction or another. Just more and more of doing this, always thinking it will fix things or lead to the right place. No apparent awareness or acknowledgement of balance or of any value that exists in other views. Rather, wipe it clean... re-write it... own it... control it. Same kind of thinking that has created our world.

If that is not a proper goal, what other goal would you propose?

Learn to SEE without agenda. Notice how dividing everything and everyone into 'sides' to blame and war against, only perpetuates imbalance. Observe the creations of ego, and how they are imposed on everything else.

You seem to say that ‘alignment’ is possible (it is suggested as possible). When aligned what do people do?

I was thinking in terms of being more aligned with all-of-life that we are a part of, rather than imposing noise and blind will onto small (partially-seen) parts of it. Perhaps we are more like noisy monkeys running around in a vibrant garden that we don't seem to recognize or understand. What would it take for such minds to 'notice' more, rather than 'imposing' more?

What I would ask is if you have succeeded in defining what your proposition is?

Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you think a particular structure is required?

If it is true that you hope to move beyond arriving at tangible, practicable answers (I modify to a degree what you wrote), what is your hoped for object? What does that look like?

More clarity beyond agenda and ego. More capability beyond agenda and ego. More clarity and capability through more balance and connection with all-of-life.

I am speaking of what I already experience at times, with extraordinary results being manifested, as many other people also experience for themselves. The current implications (for me) are of a naturally connected and synchronistic potential that human beings have access to. Sort of like a different channel we can tune to -- less 'talk radio' -- more in-depth insight, downloaded in an instant.

It has changed the way I think about everything. It is not of control or 'the will'. Rather it seems available via clear intention -- we can't fake that! (As opposed to 'muddled imposing' which is a human mess that slogs around in limitation. ) Of course, we (humankind) are going through what we are going through for LOTS of reasons. We can dance or drag ourselves through that however we want, or think we must, or feel helpless to avoid. But there is MORE to see, realize, tap into -- and it only makes sense that we cannot do so if we are adamantly pushing and identified with an agenda. What might we experience if we got 'clear' of what we are buried in? Can we even fathom being beyond that?

Perhaps men were set up to command and supposedly know such impossible answers (even if they had to make it up)... just as women were set up to take a more subservient position and be preyed upon -- a horrible and ignorant path for humankind. Perhaps we can learn from it.

What’s your opinion of Camille Paglia? She has a poignant quote I thought to include here, but it is a bit sharp.

I am not familiar with her. I'm interested in seeing the quote you thought of sharing.

[Immanuel Can]

I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus.

That's like saying, "I did not say 'Queen Elizabeth'; I said 'Lizzie.'"

But worse.

[Belinda]

I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus.

That's like saying, "I did not say 'Queen Elizabeth'; I said 'Lizzie.'"

But worse.

It is not the same!

Queen Elizabeth is a mortal woman who has not been deified.

I am aware a lot of people think 'Jesus Christ' is a mark of respect and not more. However I'd have thought you were more learned that that.

[Immanuel Can]

I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus.

That's like saying, "I did not say 'Queen Elizabeth'; I said 'Lizzie.'"

But worse.

It is not the same!

I said that.

It's worse.

[henry quirk]

Lace,

You wrote...

Notice how dividing everything and everyone into 'sides' to blame and war against, only perpetuates imbalance.

Are there any principles worth dyin' for?

[owl of Minerva]

Belinda wrote:
I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus.

Immanuel Can wrote:
That's like saying, "I did not say 'Queen Elizabeth'; I said 'Lizzie.'"
But worse.

…………………………………………………………………

Owl of Minerva response:

The name Jesus refers to his humanity. The Christ refers to his consciousness. Similar to Krishna in the Hindu religion. As a human ego and form Jesus referred to himself as the son of man. As Christ consciousness; one with the Intelligence of God in nature and beyond; Cosmic consciousness, he referred to himself as the son of God. The son of man Jesus could be crucified, the son of God, Christ consciousness could not be. I am surprised Christians do not know that. It is elemental.

[Lacewing]

Lace,

You wrote...

Notice how dividing everything and everyone into 'sides' to blame and war against, only perpetuates imbalance.

Are there any principles worth dyin' for?

Why are you talking to me, Henry? You rudely ignored my last post to you, claiming that you weren't talking to me. I am happy to give you genuine answers to your questions, IF you'll do likewise for me! Your stubborn, evasive, manic games are ruining your credibility... (apparently) with a lot of people. If you really want to demonstrate other ideas that you think people aren't considering fully enough, stop being a dumb dick -- nobody is going to listen to a dumb dick! I'm willing to consider other points of view when they're delivered thoughtfully rather than arrogantly and hatefully.

If you want to discuss the quotes above, please extend yourself FIRST by acknowledging/responding to what I said. I am not here just to answer your random questions and then be dismissed when you don't want to respond to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Your stubborn, evasive, manic games are ruining your credibility... (apparently) with a lot of people.

Apparently not.

[henry quirk]

Your stubborn, evasive, manic games are ruining your credibility... (apparently) with a lot of people.

*Apparently not.

*Nope, apparently not. Pretty sure I know the answer already. It would be intemperate and hostile to speak for her, though.

[henry quirk]

Lace,

You wrote...

Notice how dividing everything and everyone into 'sides' to blame and war against, only perpetuates imbalance.

Are there any principles worth dyin' for?

Why are you talking to me, Henry? You rudely ignored my last post to you, claiming that *you weren't talking to me. I am happy to give you genuine answers to your questions, IF you'll do likewise for me! Your stubborn, evasive, manic games are ruining your credibility... (apparently) with a lot of people. If you really want to demonstrate other ideas that you think people aren't considering fully enough, stop being a dumb dick -- nobody is going to listen to a dumb dick! I'm willing to consider other points of view when they're delivered thoughtfully rather than arrogantly and hatefully.

If you want to discuss the quotes above, **please extend yourself FIRST by acknowledging/responding to what I said. I am not here just to answer your random questions and then be dismissed when you don't want to respond to me.

*I wasn't. I was talkin' to, I believe, veg, and you butted in.

**I did acknowledge the worthy part of your post, sayin' I'd been down that road with you already. The other part, about the reputable magazine, roundaboutly was addressed up-thread, in that thread, in my comments to veg about B, common, and veg herself. I saw, see, no point in repeatin' it.

[Immanuel Can]

The name Jesus refers to his humanity. The Christ refers to his consciousness.

You've been misinformed, I fear. "Christ" means "anointed One," which is identical with the Jewish synonym "Messiah." You can find that out with any simple Greek concordance. Or here, with something even as ordinary as Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_(title)

Whoever told you the wrong thing was trying to make something fit his narrative, not explaining the word itself.

[henry quirk]

Lace wrote, up-thread...

Notice how dividing everything and everyone into 'sides' to blame and war against, only perpetuates imbalance.

My question, inspired by her comment: Are there any principles worth dyin' for?

Up-thread Alexis writes...

All peoples attempt and I think will always attempt to develop a metaphysical sense of the world in which they find themselves. When one examines different metaphysical systems one sees pretty clearly that this is so. We have to define the world. And our definition of the world (existence, our being here, life, awareness) will then inevitably bring forth a response, or an answer, in what is necessary to do, in how it is necessary to live. One way or the other we will define a metaphysics.

I agree. We have to define the world. We're driven to it. Such defining orders the world for us. This ordering is crucial for us, so we must take care this ordering is accurate, that it aligns with what is (what is true). Some work to recognize truth (what is) and others are happy to make stuff up. The first, the truth, is principle, The second, made-up stuff, are stories. Some times truth and stories overlap and in doing so are both enriched: truth is made more accessible and stories are grounded.

The modern problem: all truth has been absorbed by bad stories and where such assimilation isn't possible truth is cast out. Truth is mere element of story (when it's present) not the undergirding of story (as it should be).

My question Are there any principles worth dyin' for? points in the direction of this problem. No sane man will die for a story, but folks will die defending or preserving the truth, the principles found in some stories, or better yet, for the naked, unadorned principle.

[Lacewing]

Lace,

You wrote...

Notice how dividing everything and everyone into 'sides' to blame and war against, only perpetuates imbalance.

Are there any principles worth dyin' for?

Why are you talking to me, Henry? You rudely ignored my last post to you, claiming that *you weren't talking to me. I am happy to give you genuine answers to your questions, IF you'll do likewise for me! Your stubborn, evasive, manic games are ruining your credibility... (apparently) with a lot of people. If you really want to demonstrate other ideas that you think people aren't considering fully enough, stop being a dumb dick -- nobody is going to listen to a dumb dick! I'm willing to consider other points of view when they're delivered thoughtfully rather than arrogantly and hatefully.

If you want to discuss the quotes above, **please extend yourself FIRST by acknowledging/responding to what I said. I am not here just to answer your random questions and then be dismissed when you don't want to respond to me.

*I wasn't. I was talkin' to, I believe, veg, and you butted in.

Butted in? THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM! Do you call it 'butting in' when YOU interject a comment/question into a discussion?

**I did acknowledge the worthy part of your post, sayin' I'd been down that road with you already.

No, for this comment, I was referring to this thread... in which you asked me a question without offering any response to what I said. Now I see you have added another post in regard to that... so I will respond there.

I saw, see, no point in repeatin' it.

You repeat things all the fucking time if they matter to you. About your life, liberty, blah, blah, blah. But if someone says, "I'm not seeing where you provided a reputable or clear source of information," then you tell them you already gave it and they can go look it up. What kind of wankery avoidance is that? Just tell the sources again. Chances are, the question is slightly different OR your explanation was convoluted the first time. Make some effort, geez.