Christianity

[henry quirk]

I am familiar with John 3:16 and understand it differently than you do. Suffice it to say that it has to do with consciousness

I'm sorry, I know I'm just an ig'nant deist, but, it seems to me, this...

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

...ain't got diddly to do with consciousness.

How you arrived at such a conclusion, well, I'd really like to hear how you got there.

[Immanuel Can]

I engage in open dialogue, I do not engage with beliefs, although I could, I choose not to.

Well, you have been engaging with beliefs...because beliefs are to people as oxygen is to breathing. Everybody's doing it.

...consciousness remains the great unknown for all the disciplines.

That is true, so far as Materialist disciplines go, for sure. It's much more debatable in other disciplines. A lot of them...such as, say, psychology, sociology, theology, philosophy, the arts, politics, even some aspects of medicine...believe that consciousness is the fundamental entity they're working with.

And I think they're right. So it's not so dark where they live, as it is in the material sciences. There, I agree.

Until there is light shed on it from whatever source, I would expect it will be physics,

I expect that will be the last discipline to discover anything at all about consciousness. Its dedication to Materialism is more enthusiastic than in some other areas.

...it is useless to engage in discussions about it,

Only for Materialists. But then, they've assumptively refused to consider consciousness as a real part of the universe; so that's to be expected. One can't seem much of anything one has simply unilaterally refused to see.

So continue with your belief, I will not engage with it.

I think you'll find it's a bit too late.

[Dontaskme]

I am familiar with John 3:16 and understand it differently than you do. Suffice it to say that it has to do with consciousness

I'm sorry, I know I'm just an ig'nant deist, but, it seems to me, this...

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

...ain't got diddly to do with consciousness.

How you arrived at such a conclusion, well, I'd really like to hear how you got there.

It has every thing to do with consciousness.

But obviously you can make up your own interpretation of what the message is saying. And since it is a conscious mind that is perceiveing language and written words, making interpretations and meanings through associations, then why not use the word consciousness.

Consciousness is fundamentally behind every perceived perception that can be perceived, spoken or written.

It's no good just saying someones interpretation of a bible verse has nothing to do with the verse, that's just dumb.
I mean surely only the original author of the verse will know what the message is saying, as for everyone else, they can only make up their own interpretation as they percieve it to be.
________
John 3:16 in my opinion...means the following ....

God giving his only son, means God aka ( the imageless) gave his only son aka ( himself, as a bastard child, for there is no other self) to the world of material flesh in the form of( image ) aka a seen image of his unseen self.
How easy was that? furthermore...who sees the image, but consciousness itself, who knows the image by name, but the mental construction through word.

Or... in other words....
When pure latent awarenesss (father) knows sensation, kinetic consciousness (mother) son is born (mind)
These 3 things, awareness, consciousness, and mind, are all apects of the same ONE reality, interconnecting with itself.

Nothing wrong with the word consciousness. Awareness, consciousness, and mind, all mean the exact same thing, namely SELF OR BEING

But then humans will always distort the ''absolute truth'' to serve their own agenda's. In a sense that if you do not Agree with my version of the truth, then fuck off, kind of way...


Point is, we all know truth, every single one of us knows the absolute truth because our CONSCIOUSNESS is more sophisticated in the sense it is capable of being aware it is aware.....some other animals can be like that, but not as keen as what the human consciousness is capable of....so we all know the truth, because as a human consciousness, we can know truth...so it matters not how one chooses to word truth...your own truth of being and self needs no proof or approval from anyone outside of your own knowing.

And that's what IC does not fully grasp yet.

[Dontaskme]

As for God loving the world so much that he was willing to die for it.

That's what you get for loving to dip your nib in the ink well.

You get some rather not what you quite expected surprises ...in other words, the birth of the brat...aka mind.

[Belinda]

If God can change despairing men to hopeful men, and can change bad men to good men, why does He not always do so?

Because many men will not permit it.

Not everybody wants to change. Change starts with admitting you're no what you ought to be. That's painful and humiliating. Then it means accepting one's helplessness to change oneself. That's also hard to take. Then it means asking God to do what you cannot do. That's trusting, and trust is frightening. And finally, it means life will never be the same again. That's also disconcerting.

So lots of people simply would rather be what they are. From God's side, their freedom to choose is inviolable; because without freedom, no relationship is even possible.

So they get what they have chosen, even when they choose badly.

I like your reply and wish it were so. There remains the problem that if God is all powerful than He could make men want to change. I doubt if you can answer this as nobody else has ever been able to do so.

[henry quirk]

If God can change despairing men to hopeful men, and can change bad men to good men, why does He not always do so?

Because many men will not permit it.

Not everybody wants to change. Change starts with admitting you're no what you ought to be. That's painful and humiliating. Then it means accepting one's helplessness to change oneself. That's also hard to take. Then it means asking God to do what you cannot do. That's trusting, and trust is frightening. And finally, it means life will never be the same again. That's also disconcerting.

So lots of people simply would rather be what they are. From God's side, their freedom to choose is inviolable; because without freedom, no relationship is even possible.

So they get what they have chosen, even when they choose badly.

I like your reply and wish it were so. There remains the problem that if God is all powerful than He could make men want to change. *I doubt if you can answer this as nobody else has ever been able to do so.

*God wanted, wants, free wills, not robots or pets.

Answered, easily.

for me.

[Belinda]

As for God loving the world so much that he was willing to die for it.

That's what you get for loving to dip your nib in the ink well.

You get some rather not what you quite expected surprises ...in other words, the birth of the brat...aka mind.

Go along that road and you will be a Christian, if you are not one already.

[Belinda]

Because many men will not permit it.

Not everybody wants to change. Change starts with admitting you're no what you ought to be. That's painful and humiliating. Then it means accepting one's helplessness to change oneself. That's also hard to take. Then it means asking God to do what you cannot do. That's trusting, and trust is frightening. And finally, it means life will never be the same again. That's also disconcerting.

So lots of people simply would rather be what they are. From God's side, their freedom to choose is inviolable; because without freedom, no relationship is even possible.

So they get what they have chosen, even when they choose badly.

I like your reply and wish it were so. There remains the problem that if God is all powerful than He could make men want to change. *I doubt if you can answer this as nobody else has ever been able to do so.

*God wanted, wants, free wills, not robots or pets.

Answered, easily.

for me.

Good answer Henry! Actually the only answer that makes sense. The problem with Free Will is it is a tiny bit of the supernatural that is lodged in each man's psyche. So far so good, only most people nowadays do not believe in any supernatural form of being, as science does not detect anything supernatural. Sure, we detect instances of people being good ,like Jesus said. Do we have to believe in supernatural stories to follow the ethics of Jesus?

[henry quirk]

I am familiar with John 3:16 and understand it differently than you do. Suffice it to say that it has to do with consciousness

I'm sorry, I know I'm just an ig'nant deist, but, it seems to me, this...

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

...ain't got diddly to do with consciousness.

How you arrived at such a conclusion, well, I'd really like to hear how you got there.

It has every thing to do with consciousness.

But obviously you can make up your own interpretation of what the message is saying. And since it is a conscious mind that is perceiveing language and written words, making interpretations and meanings through associations, then why not use the word consciousness.

Consciousness is fundamentally behind every perceived perception that can be perceived, spoken or written.

It's no good just saying someones interpretation of a bible verse has nothing to do with the verse, that's just dumb.
I mean surely only the original author of the verse will know what the message is saying, as for everyone else, they can only make up their own interpretation as they percieve it to be.
________
John 3:16 in my opinion...means the following ....

God giving his only son, means God aka ( the imageless) gave his only son aka ( himself, as a bastard child, for there is no other self) to the world of material flesh in the form of( image ) aka a seen image of his unseen self.
How easy was that? furthermore...who sees the image, but consciousness itself, who knows the image by name, but the mental construction through word.

Or... in other words....
When pure latent awarenesss (father) knows sensation, kinetic consciousness (mother) son is born (mind)
These 3 things, awareness, consciousness, and mind, are all apects of the same ONE reality, interconnecting with itself.

Nothing wrong with the word consciousness. Awareness, consciousness, and mind, all mean the exact same thing, namely SELF OR BEING

But then humans will always distort the ''absolute truth'' to serve their own agenda's. In a sense that if you do not Agree with my version of the truth, then fuck off, kind of way...


Point is, we all know truth, every single one of us knows the absolute truth because our CONSCIOUSNESS is more sophisticated in the sense it is capable of being aware it is aware.....some other animals can be like that, but not as keen as what the human consciousness is capable of....so we all know the truth, because as a human consciousness, we can know truth...so it matters not how one chooses to word truth...your own truth of being and self needs no proof or approval from anyone outside of your own knowing.

And that's what IC does not fully grasp yet.

I think you've tortured the passage to the point there's literally no connection between it and your interpretation.

As for my own: I take it, the passage, as is: God loves us so much He died to redeem us.

[henry quirk]

Do we have to believe in supernatural stories to follow the ethics of Jesus?

To be Christian: you gotta believe, yeah.

[henry quirk]

most people nowadays do not believe in any supernatural form of being

As I reckon it: God doesn't require man's belief.

It may be, however, man requires God's.

[Belinda]

Do we have to believe in supernatural stories to follow the ethics of Jesus?

To be Christian: you gotta believe, yeah.

Is it proper for a free man to believe an institutional doctrine?

The moral code from the Gospels is the best and most reasonable . But do you also have to buy all the supernatural stories?

[henry quirk]

Is it proper for a free man to believe an institutional doctrine?

Since when is the Bible institutional?


But do you also have to buy all the supernatural stories?

As I understand Christianity: yep.

[Belinda]

Is it proper for a free man to believe an institutional doctrine?

Since when is the Bible institutional?


But do you also have to buy all the supernatural stories?

As I understand Christianity: yep.

The Bible is not institutional. The Bible is world class literature.
Why cannot you pick and choose to make your own version of Christianity? You are not free enough!

The Bible is as it is. But you do not live under a regime that insists you believe one interpretation and one only. You are actually free to think for yourself. Me , telling an American his Constitutional rights!

[henry quirk]

Is it proper for a free man to believe an institutional doctrine?

Generally: what's proper for a free man is what he chooses for himself (within the *context of his bein' a free man, of course).




*It's not proper, for example, for a free man to turn to slavin' as occupation, and it's not proper (or even possible, I think), for a free man to crave enslavement.