Christianity

[Sculptor]

So, if God, to you, is a fictional character, then OBVIOUSLY it could NOT exist, as a REAL thing. Therefore, your Honest answer would have been a 'No'.

Now, WHY do you even have discussions with "others" about fictional characters in regards to them existingbor not?

This, well to me anyway, appears to on the very edge of complete absurdity AND insanity.

Why is because I think it is important for all people to avoid self delusions and of benefit for them to unpack the assumptions upon which their belief systems work so that they may be better informed and able to go in to the world with open eyes.

You have obviously MISSED the POINT. Your definition of 'God' is OBVIOUSLY NOT the one ALL "others" use. What I think you will find is that there is NO one here, in this forum anyway, who disagrees with you that fictional characters do not exist, as real livings things. What this means is that when you use the word 'God', and what you ACTUALLY MEAN is a fictional character, and you say 'God does NOT exist', then NO one even disputes this CLAIM of YOURS.

Unless of course there is someone, which we will wait for.

Why is because I think it is important for all people to avoid self delusions and of benefit for them to unpack the assumptions upon which their belief systems work so that they may be better informed and able to go in to the world with open eyes.

[Belinda]

You need not be quarrelsome.

Me?

I was not "quarrelling." I was just pointing out that I never said anything like what you attributed to me. So my suggestion is that you might want to stop attributing things to me that didn't actually say. And that would be nice...and honest... and that would be good.

I will not misquote you.

(When did you stop beating your wife? )

[Alexis Jacobi]

Christians and Jews have long recognized just that fact. And it accounts for the proliferation of myths and stories around the world...lots of guesses. But Judaism and Christianity deal with that through another postulate, also implied in the use of the word "Word" in John 1 -- that is, the implication of communication. For one does not issue "words" to nothing. One speaks TO somebody...a recipient, a hearer, a receiver, somebody who benefits from the "word" communicated.

So Judaism and Christianity say, "Not only does God exist, but He communicates." His first "communication" was Creation itself; but beyond that, God Himself communicates in propositions and language. The nature of the Creator God is such that He makes Himself known. He reveals Himself in His Word.

If God does speak, then we are no longer only dealing with guesses. We have the propositional revelation of God. And all the human "guesses" that don't conform to that "word" are not worth any more than any other guess...only if to whatever extent they're lucky enough to capture, by accident or intuition, some element of the truth are they valuable; and to the extent they depart from God's self-revelation, they are not truth at all.

Since I think it is always a good choice to *cut to the chase* and to try to get to the heart of the matter, I have to reveal my cards in this context. I think I have been doing that but, as often happens, it has taken shape indirectly. One advantage of this recent conversation for me has been to have realized the need, in myself, to put into reasoned and reasonable terms essentially what I think of the entire *Christian Problem*. It is not an easy thing to do.

But I can start with what is declared in the Gospel of John: In the beginning was the Word. What I take from this, but moreover from “The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” is an expression of a Universal truth. Previously, I placed this truth within a far larger context: the manifest Universe. That is to say not just our world but all worlds that exist. So what I am forced to say, and what I am forced to believe (to put it in these colloquial terms) is that whatever is being spoken of is transcendent to the specific example or instance in which, here, it is expressed.

The *meaning* as I said in a previous post transcends to *story* in thich the meaning is encased. Obviously, by stating what I have stated, I am creating exegetical problems. These are not small issues. Because if as I say there is a universal truth that transcends our world — the limitations of our conceived order, the parameters of what we can understand — I will necessarily have to encounter, and explain I would assume, a transcendental metaphysics of which the Christian revelation, and indeed the Judaic or Hebrew revelation, is just a part.

So there is another problem that immediately comes to the surface and it too is not small. The message in John is transcendent to the Hebrew revelation. This is highly relevant in the fact that the figure Jesus took a radical stand against the *context* into which the *Word* (so to speak) incarnated — that is, manifested. But I do not think that either Hebrew or Christian could ever or did ever succeed in, shall I say, initiating or finalizing (?) the divorce. So in this sense there seems to be far too much historicity with everything both Christian and certainly Jewish. And you will remember that many pages back I made some comments about what I take to be your *Christian Zionism*. But whether in fact you are or are not a Christian Zionist does not matter much because 1) the conversation I try to have transcends any personal position we may have or you may have and 2) Christianity is in my view in a profound state of dramatic confusion and the larger part of Christians are today Christian Zionists. This does actually mean that politics has entered into the entire question dramatically and very strangely. In this sense then many Christians are ‘sheep’ being led by a strange pastor to give over assent not to metaphysical principles, but much more obviously to terrestrial power-games.

This leads — in my case, and my case is personal, but the larger issue here is not personal — to a group of different problems. But the first order of business, in my view, is to separate the Christian revelation in its specificity from the metaphysical principles that it expresses. To say *metaphysical principles* is a way of restating what is said in John. That is to say metaphysical facts or *realities* that transcend the specificity of the revelation and apply universally, to all possible worlds.

Because if (as we previously discussed) that Logos was inherent in the Cosmos, and the manifestation of the Universe, prior to the manifestation (an unavoidable idea), then in this sense it is not possible to say that the Universe is either Hebrew or Christian, and though it was a joke, of sorts, it is necessary to say that God does not speak with a Yiddish accent.

I am interested in this statement: “Christians and Jews have long recognized just that fact. And it accounts for the proliferation of myths and stories around the world...lots of guesses”. Though I do not think that you could recognize (taking what I say here in a wide sense) that Christianity and Judaism are completely wound up in ‘story’ and ‘myth’. In fact many people today reject Christianity, and Judaism as well (especially Messianic Judaism which stands behind the reconquest of Jerusalem and the re-domination of Israel in our present and proposes the rebuilding of the Temple, etc.) because it is entirely bound up in politics and the larger world-situation.

Now, I do not think that any of this will change and thus it is not really my problem or concern. What I mean is that (for example) Evangelical Christians are, bizarrely, clamoring for the manifestation of events that, in their view, in their story, will fulfill *the Biblical prophecies*. Similarly (and I have no idea if you pay any attention to these things) there are hyper-conservative and hyper-strict Orthodox factions in Israel that actually believe that they are on the threshold of the historical moment when it will be possible to *rebuild the Temple*.

The implication is, of course, that Christians and Jews, driven by Story, driven by their assertions, and driven by their personal views and beliefs, are engineering events of consequence for all people. This is serious stuff.

But again this is not really my point and I am only pointing to things everyone is aware of (or should be aware of).

My concerns transcend all of this and for the simple reason that though I may presume that those who are wrapped up in these Mega-Stories are likely half- or even three-quarters mad, I am not sure of the metaphysical principles that stand behind the Christian revelation, or the Hebrew revelation, are actually being understood.

[Immanuel Can]

So my suggestion is that you might want to stop attributing things to me that didn't actually say. And that would be nice...and honest... and that would be good.

You didn't say anything... Only God speaks

You are God.

Oh, you poor soul.

[Immanuel Can]

You need not be quarrelsome.

Me?

I was not "quarrelling." I was just pointing out that I never said anything like what you attributed to me. So my suggestion is that you might want to stop attributing things to me that didn't actually say. And that would be nice...and honest... and that would be good.

I will not misquote you.

(When did you stop beating your wife?

Now, now...that's not honest either. I'm not presupposing something you didn't do. Here it is:

Belinda wrote:
I concede to your right wing point of view that the building of urban churches gave a centre for social life and distribution of charity.

I did not say this. You said it, then attributed it to me, then labelled it "right wing," (even though it has no "wing" but is a conventional historical claim...one I still didn't make).

I'm happy to defend the claims I make. The claims you make up, you'll have to defend yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

I can start with what is declared in the Gospel of John: In the beginning was the Word. What I take from this, but moreover from “The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” is an expression of a Universal truth.

Wait: what do we mean by "universal truth"? For that expression is ambiguous.

It could mean either a) a truth which, once it happens, is thereafter true everywhere, at all times, and regardless of persons -- a "universal fact," if you will; or b) that all people automatically (as per the theology called "Universalism") are automatically "chidren of God."

We need to realize that John 1 rules out the second implication. We can tell that rather easily, by things like the phrase, "to all who did receive Him," and "His own did not recieve Him." This divides the world into two classes, clearly: those who heard the universal truth of what God has done and responded in faith, and those for whom the same truth was true but who did not receive it at all.

Previously, I placed this truth within a far larger context: the manifest Universe. That is to say not just our world but all worlds that exist. So what I am forced to say, and what I am forced to believe (to put it in these colloquial terms) is that whatever is being spoken of is transcendent to the specific example or instance in which, here, it is expressed.

I'm not at all sure why you say you are "forced to believe" any such thing, actually. It does not seem evident to me that there are "other worlds that exist"; but if they do, we manifestly know nothing about them, and so cannot possibly take this statement as a proposition about things we cannot and do not know to exist.

In contrast, to take this as referring to the specific conditions on the only "world" the Bible ever speaks about seems very natural. So far from being "forceful" in compelling the reading you suggest, it seems rather clear that the entire burden of proof would be on anybody who believes it, and that nothing in the context of Scripture or in current science itself will enable such a reading to meet that burden.

I would assume, a transcendental metaphysics of which the Christian revelation, and indeed the Judaic or Hebrew revelation, is just a part.

I have no idea why you would feel obligated to assume that. As I said, I think the total lack of both Scriptural and empirical evidence for it would speak powerfully against any such assumption. But if means exist to justify that assumption, I'm interested in hearing you lay them out.

So there is another problem that immediately comes to the surface and it too is not small. The message in John is transcendent to the Hebrew revelation.

That's debatable. Modern Judaism says that the message of John is not "transcendent" at all, but rather an unwarranted extrapolation on Old Testament text, especially since it identifies Jesus as Messiah. The original Christians, who were all Jews, saw it as an absolute continuation and fulfillment of the Davidic promises, and Jesus as definitely the Messiah.

So neither actually held that the thing "transcended" the Hebrew revelation: rather it either was, or was not, the rightful extension and exposition of it.

I do not think that either Hebrew or Christian could ever or did ever succeed in, shall I say, initiating or finalizing (?) the divorce.

Well, in a sense, that's quite right. For Jews, there's no "divorce" because, in their view, there was no "marriage." In Christian thought (outside of the pernicious field of what's called "Supersessionism" or "Replacement Theology," and within actual Biblical doctrine) there was never any chance of "divorcing" Christianity from its role as fulfillment of Hebrew revelations.

So again, no "divorce" is attempted at all, on either side.

...2) Christianity is in my view in a profound state of dramatic confusion and the larger part of Christians are today Christian Zionists.

Actually, the larger part of nominal "Christendom" is persuaded of some form of Supersessionism. But real Christians, if they have their doctrine straight at all, do not either sever Christian revelation from its Hebrew roots nor gratuitously treat the current State of Israel as a Christian state. Rather, they recognize israel as currently in rebellion against Messiah, but ultimately also the place of Messiah's triumph and rule. They anticipate not the inevitable triumph of secular Israel, nor the annihilation of Israel by its enemies, but the rescue of the obedient element in Israel by Messiah. So for them, as for me, Israel is neither inerrant now nor dispensible anytime.

Is that "Zionism"? Not really. I think the term "Zionism" is ordinarily used for some sort of aspiration that present Israel, secular Israel, has an inexorable triumphant trajectory of it's own, on that has to do with what you call "terrestrial power games." And I don't think any knowledgeable Christian believes that. Certainly, they shouldn't.

Absent Messiah, there is no redemption for Israel...or for anyone else. That's solid Christian theology.

This leads — in my case, and my case is personal, but the larger issue here is not personal — to a group of different problems. But the first order of business, in my view, is to separate the Christian revelation in its specificity from the metaphysical principles that it expresses. To say *metaphysical principles* is a way of restating what is said in John. That is to say metaphysical facts or *realities* that transcend the specificity of the revelation and apply universally, to all possible worlds.

Again, I think this project of imagining a set of "metpahysical principles" beyond the specifics of Scripture (even if one tries to derive them from thence) is a vain one. The great weight of evidence is that John's words are meant specifically for THIS world, and for us in specific, not for some imaginary world of which we have no knowledge and for which we have no evidence.

It is necessary to say that God does not speak with a Yiddish accent.

That would be to mistake the order. It is not that God ever speaks with a human accent, but rather that Hebrews and Christians are trying to speak with a divine one.

Surely we must not reverse the priority of the Original and the mere copy.

I am interested in this statement: “Christians and Jews have long recognized just that fact. And it accounts for the proliferation of myths and stories around the world...lots of guesses”.

It's very simple. In addition to the truth, there are a lot of lies. The number of lies often serves to obscure the identity of the truth. We know that the many world religions does not imply that there are multiple ways to God; merely that there are many lies, errors, deceptions and deviations from the one way that God Himself sanctions.

In fact many people today reject Christianity, and Judaism as well (especially Messianic Judaism which stands behind the reconquest of Jerusalem and the re-domination of Israel in our present and proposes the rebuilding of the Temple, etc.) because it is entirely bound up in politics and the larger world-situation.

They do reject both, and yes, it offends their geo-political preferences. I'm not sure that matters at all to the question of what's true.

As I say, I do not think "Zionism" is the right term. It is a word used to cover rather disparate beliefs, and as such, can be quite misleading. Christians do not have reason to exalt Israel in its present state; but they have good reason to insist that Jews have a right to live, and that Israel has been given in perpetuity to the Jewish nation.

And their warrant is Biblical. If, as any Christian must believe, the Bible is the Word of God, then God's bequeathing of the land of Israel to Israel is well within His power and right to do. And after that, what does people's geo-political squeamishness matter? But it does not mean, for example, that a Christian is bound always to be happy about what Israel, in its Messiah-rejecting present state, does. If nothing else, a Christian can certainly take rightful exception to policies like the Right of Return policy, or to the promotion of blasphemy, xenophobia or promiscuity in current Israel.

...there are hyper-conservative and hyper-strict Orthodox factions in Israel that actually believe that they are on the threshold of the historical moment when it will be possible to *rebuild the Temple*.

One day, it will be rebuilt. Of that, there can be no doubt. Prophecy assures us it will. But we have no need to make it happen: in fact, if we Christians did, it wouldn't be real "prophecy" at all. It would be our own doing.

The implication is, of course, that Christians and Jews, driven by Story, driven by their assertions, and driven by their personal views and beliefs, are engineering events of consequence for all people. This is serious stuff.

I am well aware that many Jews aspire to rebuild the Temple. But I see no evidence that Christians are "engineering" any of this. They don't need to. As I say, it will happen: the "how" is not up to us.

I am not sure of the metaphysical principles that stand behind the Christian revelation, or the Hebrew revelation, are actually being understood.

I have to remain unconvinced of this idea of "metaphysical principles standing behind" the Christian and Hebrew revelation. I think the case for such really stands to be made yet. As I said earlier, the burden of proof to show that such exist is surely on the shoulders of those who posit such a thing; and I'm not unwilling to discover such principles, should they exist. But prima facie, the Biblical revelation is rather specific and clear, and does not seem to indicate any set of less literal "principles" floating nebulously behind the specifics.

Still, I'm willing to see the case made. So what are some of these "metaphysical principles" you believe to be "standing behind" the Christian and Hebrew revelation?

[owl of Minerva]

By Alexis Jacobi in response to Immanuel Can:

“Now, I do not think that any of this will change and thus it is not really my problem or concern. What I mean is that (for example) Evangelical Christians are, bizarrely, clamoring for the manifestation of events that, in their view, in their story, will fulfill *the Biblical prophecies*. Similarly (and I have no idea if you pay any attention to these things) there are hyper-conservative and hyper-strict Orthodox factions in Israel that actually believe that they are on the threshold of the historical moment when it will be possible to *rebuild the Temple*.

The implication is, of course, that Christians and Jews, driven by Story, driven by their assertions, and driven by their personal views and beliefs, are engineering events of consequence for all people. This is serious stuff.

But again this is not really my point and I am only pointing to things everyone is aware of (or should be aware of).

My concerns transcend all of this and for the simple reason that though I may presume that those who are wrapped up in these Mega-Stories are likely half- or even three-quarters mad, I am not sure of the metaphysical principles that stand behind the Christian revelation, or the Hebrew revelation, are actually being understood.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

You make some very valid points here. Evangelical Christians have gone back to the pre-Christian world of the Torah and other teachings (5th and 6th century B.C) a period in which the descent into the Dark Age had begun. It was important then for understanding to abide by the letter of the law. Christianity was to be a new dispensation; understanding the spirit of the law, it was preparation for the coming age in which not just matter but the forces that enliven matter would again be understood. Which happened towards the end of the ascending arc of The Dark Ages, around the 15th and 16th centuries.

The problem is not Story but that Story is taken as concrete happenings in the physical world rather than being understood as metaphor. For example: the “rebuilding of the Temple” is metaphor for the body the self, not a building out there. How will the self, consciousness be built to bring about a “new Jerusalem,” not the actual Jerusalem but a future society when a new spiritual consciousness and understanding will be manifested.

This is the problem, Dark Age thinking that cannot comprehend anything other than form, what is concrete and visible to the naked eye. They do not understand that these are examples for states of mind, of consciousness. So they fight as if it is physical territory that has to be preserved, an actual physical temple built in order for the new world order to appear. What is needed is that they reform themselves, their consciousness as the Old Testament prophets advised, giving them the rules and precepts to abide by. Until the spirit of the law could be explained, again as metaphor, in the Christian dispensation. It had to be metaphor, ``as how could consciousness be understood then, when it is not understood even now.

What is the solution? Not easy to say, people can only understand to the extent they are able. Beyond that we can only watch and hope for the best.

[Immanuel Can]

Evangelical Christians have gone back to the pre-Christian world of the Torah and other teachings (5th and 6th century B.C) a period in which the descent into the Dark Age had begun.

So much could be said about this sadly mythical view of European history. But not even "Dark Age" theorists of the most gloomy type, like Eddie Gibbon, date "The Dark Ages" to earlier than the fall of Rome, which believers in that theory suggest happened sometime in the Fifth Century A.D. Some ten centuries after you suggest.

However, if you're really interested, here are some better facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqzq01i2O3U

[Alexis Jacobi]

So much could be said about this sadly mythical view of European history. But not even "Dark Age" theorists of the most gloomy type, like Eddie Gibbon, date "The Dark Ages" to earlier than the fall of Rome, which believers in that theory suggest happened sometime in the Fifth Century A.D. Some ten centuries after you suggest.

However, if you're really interested, here are some better facts.

I can’t be sure but I have a sense that Owl of Minerva has investigated the work of Rene Guenon and traditionalists who define a general descent which is broader. For example the idea of ‘yugas’ and that we are in a darker one despite the appearance of so much material success. The problem with Guenon, for standard Christians (and other committed religionists) is that he explores a universal metaphysics that must, by the logic of things, express itself in all traditions though in different forms. So, Guenon tends to see the larger picture as better expressed in Eastern metaphysics. I think I grasped this before I encountered Guenon but Guenon definitely cemented it for me.

So I would have to say that I agree with Owl of Minerva in the sense that each Christian symbol needs to be understood esoterically. I am especially interested in ‘regeneration from above’ which can be taken in a purely metaphysical sense. What does it mean *to be regenerated from above*? I do not think the idea can be fairly considered to be a unique dominion of Christianity. And to assert this would seem to turn against the standard Christian notion of John 3:1-10. But the truth, if it is a truth, must as I see things operate universally. It cannot be the possession of someone who owns it and doles it out — despite what Catholics and Christians assert.

The problem with Guenonian metaphysics is that it opens one up into territories in which it is difficult to retain specific allegiances.

The problem is not Story but that Story is taken as concrete happenings in the physical world rather than being understood as metaphor. For example: the “rebuilding of the Temple” is metaphor for the body the self, not a building out there. How will the self, consciousness be built to bring about a “new Jerusalem,” not the actual Jerusalem but a future society when a new spiritual consciousness and understanding will be manifested.

[Immanuel Can]

...each Christian symbol needs to be understood esoterically.

"Esoterically." Lovely word.

It means, "through the mediation of some reading no sane person would ever imagine, and contrary to any obvious, explicit or contextual meaning of the text." But an additional worry with all "esoteric" readings is their political effect -- because of the fact that they require a counterintuitive interpretation by a special caste of interpreters, "esoteric" readings shift authority to the "illuminati," the "enlightened ones," the high priests of the hidden meaning of the text, and take it out of your hands and mine.

It is that sort of monopoly that Luther broke...and the Catholic hierarchy hated him for it. He told the ordinary person, as Soren Kierkegaard would much later also say, that interpretation and the subsequent moral responsibility of acting on it falls on the individual, not the collective "church" hierarchy or some special caste of interpreters. Each man became his own interpreter. And though the effects of that were not universally good -- resulting in considerable contention and division -- it was an outcome much, much better than what preceded it: ironclad control of the text by the self-appointed "illuminati" in the clergy.

What does it mean *to be regenerated from above*? I do not think the idea can be fairly considered to be a unique dominion of Christianity.

Why not?

It seems obviously a coinage of Jesus Christ Himself, in John 3. And you can see from Nicodemus's reaction (Nicodemus was apparently the second most highly esteemed Jewish teacher of Jesus' day), that no frame of reference existed in his mind that would allow him to know what to make of those words. To him, it was an entirely new concept.

Now, it is true that the Tanakh does predict being "born again." (Jer. 33:31-35, for example) But it does not spell it out in the detail or length that Jesus did, or that Paul later would. It was so well hidden that even Nicodemus had clearly never considered the relevant passages. So while it was, indeed, in the Jewish tradition, Jews themselves were unaware of it.

Now, what would give us reason to expect that outside of the Christian and Jewish traditions, we'd find it at all? That doesn't at all seem obvious to me.

But the truth, if it is a truth, must as I see things operate universally.

Wait. What do you mean "universally"?

I asked that earlier, right? Do you mean simply "true unconditionally," or do you mean "every single person and culture on the planet must have exactly the same knowledge at all times?"

I see no warrant for expecting the second: do you?

It cannot be the possession of someone who owns it and doles it out — despite what Catholics and Christians assert.

Well, the Catholics, maybe; but Christians don't believe that truth is ever somebody else's possession. It belongs to God. And it is not doled out through a priesthood or other set of "esoteric readers," but is rather plain and available to all who will hear it and respond. In that sense, it's "universal."

But John 1 makes it very clear that the truth is not "universal" in the other sense. For as I said, there are those who receive the truth, and those who refuse the truth. John mentions both, and in the very passage you quoted. If "universal" means "everybody at all times and places must get exactly the same amount of illumination, regardless of the facts they know and the decisions they make," then there is NO knowledge that is "universal." None.

Descartes thought the only truly universal knowlege was the "thinker's" (or better the "doubter's") knowledge that he himself exists. Even that has been called into question, but it's certainly the only possible candidate for a totally "universal" kind of knowledge.

So what do you mean when you say "universal"?

...the “rebuilding of the Temple” is metaphor for the body the self, not a building out there.

No, that's an artificial psychologizing of a factual claim. There's nothing in the Biblical text that will warrant such a reading. But the plain meaning is clear.

How will the self, consciousness be built to bring about a “new Jerusalem,” not the actual Jerusalem but a future society when a new spiritual consciousness and understanding will be manifested.

Simple: it will not.

According to the Bible, the "self" is the locus of the problem, not the solution. And the Bible promises that no gymnastics-of-the-self will produce a wondrous "future society." The message of salvation is rather, "If God does not rescue us, then we will not be saved at all." That much is very clear.

In that case, not only is the "esoteric" reading not a good reading, but one directly contradictory to the natural Biblical reading. It requires not merely the re-visioning of something in the text, but rather the total contradiction and denial of the explicit teaching of the text, which says,

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." (Eph. 2:8-10)

[owl of Minerva]

By Emanuel Can:

“So much could be said about this sadly mythical view of European history. But not even "Dark Age" theorists of the most gloomy type, like Eddie Gibbon, date "The Dark Ages" to earlier than the fall of Rome, which believers in that theory suggest happened sometime in the Fifth Century A.D. Some ten centuries after you suggest.

However, if you're really interested, here are some better facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqzq01i2O3U

…………………………………………………………………….

It is not my view of European history and I did not say that it was. After the Reformation the Middle Ages were denigrated as having been an era of superstition and bigotry by Protestants. As the video points out it was anything but the case. The descending arc of the Dark Ages from 700 A.D. to 499 B.C., duration of 1200 years, were long past. The ascending arc lasted to 1700; 1200 years.

The video has it right, there was great art, great architecture and universities that were centers of learning during that period. I totally agree.

[owl of Minerva]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

“I can’t be sure but I have a sense that Owl of Minerva has investigated the work of Rene Guenon and traditionalists who define a general descent which is broader. For example the idea of ‘yugas’ and that we are in a darker one despite the appearance of so much material success. The problem with Guenon, for standard Christians (and other committed religionists) is that he explores a universal metaphysics that must, by the logic of things, express itself in all traditions though in different forms. So, Guenon tends to see the larger picture as better expressed in Eastern metaphysics. I think I grasped this before I encountered Guenon but Guenon definitely cemented it for me.

So I would have to say that I agree with Owl of Minerva in the sense that each Christian symbol needs to be understood esoterically. I am especially interested in ‘regeneration from above’ which can be taken in a purely metaphysical sense. What does it mean *to be regenerated from above*? I do not think the idea can be fairly considered to be a unique dominion of Christianity. And to assert this would seem to turn against the standard Christian notion of John 3:1-10. But the truth, if it is a truth, must as I see things operate universally. It cannot be the possession of someone who owns it and doles it out — despite what Catholics and Christians assert.

The problem with Guenonian metaphysics is that it opens one up into territories in which it is difficult to retain specific allegiances.
The problem is not Story but that Story is taken as concrete happenings in the physical world rather than being understood as metaphor. For example: the “rebuilding of the Temple” is metaphor for the body the self, not a building out there. How will the self, consciousness be built to bring about a “new Jerusalem,” not the actual Jerusalem but a future society when a new spiritual consciousness and understanding will be manifested.”

…………………………………..

I am not familiar with the work of Rene Guenon. It is true that prophets had to speak in metaphor or parables, using the seen and familiar to explain truth. I also agree that truth is One and is universal; expressed differently in different times and climes and culturally appropriately as well; in the languages and understandings of each culture. That makes it appear diverse and different, often perceived as different truths.

The problem is misunderstanding and the human tendency to appropriate truth and make it tribal and sectarian. That is where the problem lies. A more enlightened future may, hopefully, put an end to that.

[Janoah]

It's impossible to make an idol of nature. Nature is simply what is the case, whereas idols are particular ideas .

do not mix immiscible ..
Nature is both changeable matter, subject to the laws of nature, and regularity of nature to which matter is subject.
If we return to philosophical schemes, then the substantial form is the First cause of the world. Aristotle calls the One the form of the world.
The regularity of nature is the immaterial form of the world, its inner beginning, its essence, and matter is its content.
And an idol is, in fact, - the materialization of God, the materialization of the immaterial. Or, conversely, the deification of the changeable material.
Thus, the deification of material nature is the making of an idol, and the One is the regularity of nature.

[Dontaskme]

So my suggestion is that you might want to stop attributing things to me that didn't actually say. And that would be nice...and honest... and that would be good.

You didn't say anything... Only God speaks

You are God.

Oh, you poor soul.

Why clutch at straws ?

I'm simply stating that there is no God outside of human sentient awareness.
In fact there is only awareness aware of itself.

My God, even Jesus himself spoke of the transcendent God, who cannot be approached or seen in essence or being, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus.

What the heck is wrong with you IC


Nonduality refers to "the interconnectedness of everything which is dependent upon the nondual One, Transcendent Reality,"

ONE is another word for God ...is this not obvious, why the incessant need to complicate something that is at base level mind blowingly simple and ordinary that even a child knows this.

[Age]

Why is because I think it is important for all people to avoid self delusions and of benefit for them to unpack the assumptions upon which their belief systems work so that they may be better informed and able to go in to the world with open eyes.

You have obviously MISSED the POINT. Your definition of 'God' is OBVIOUSLY NOT the one ALL "others" use. What I think you will find is that there is NO one here, in this forum anyway, who disagrees with you that fictional characters do not exist, as real livings things. What this means is that when you use the word 'God', and what you ACTUALLY MEAN is a fictional character, and you say 'God does NOT exist', then NO one even disputes this CLAIM of YOURS.

Unless of course there is someone, which we will wait for.

Why is because I think it is important for all people to avoid self delusions and of benefit for them to unpack the assumptions upon which their belief systems work so that they may be better informed and able to go in to the world with open eyes.

Yet it is you here who is so completely CLOSED, and thus BLINDED that you are NOT YET even able to SEE this Fact. And, hypocritically you are accusing "others" here of NOT SEEING with OPEN eyes.