Christianity

[Age]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

the God that we recognize and acknowledge is revealed uniquely through our own selves. I guess I would say that we are the metaphysical instrument, and we have a relationship with God (if we have one) through the instrument of our psyche.

I fail to see how that can possibly be the case. The parents who rear a child typically are the initial channels through which the child understands God, or anything else..

How could parents who rear a child be the channels which the child 'understands' God?

There is NOT a human being who YET 'understands' God.

ONLY 'I' 'understand' God, FULLY. And, 'I' have NOT provided ANY of 'you' with that INFORMATION, YET.

The child could not even learn his native language unless he was in a social situation.

LOL It ONLY becomes a so-called 'native language' because of the social situation one is brought up within.

For example I myself was reared in a Christian community, and I was Christened when I was a baby. The import of this ceremony was that my parents introduced me to the church community who would help them to rear me according to the Christian faith.

It's possible that some individuals at my Christening believed there was a mystical supernatural event happening, but such a belief would have been eccentric.

[Age]

As I said up-thread: I used to call God Crom. Here's why...

He dwells on a great mountain.

Is this the ONLY place the NONE "he" dwells?

Could 'great mountain' just be referring to UP HIGH, where, literally, ALL can be SEEN, and thus UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN, with 'dwell' referring to where God just lives/exists?

Or, does that saying HAVE TO MEAN that there is some male gendered being sitting/standing on some mountain, which is somewhat bigger or greater than some other mountains are?

What use to call on him?

Could it be because of what God is ACTUALLY, and because of this Fact God then KNOWING better than what 'you', little human beings, THINK you know?

Little he cares if men live or die.

If one STOPPED with the incessant and OBVIOUSLY INSANELY Wrong term "he", then 'they' would be CLOSER to SEEING and KNOWING what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth here is "them self".

Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune!

WHAT is this ASSUMPTION based on, EXACTLY?

He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods? Robert E. Howard

-----

if you wanna know the secrets of Howard's passage, go read some Conan, you xeno

And, if you want to KNOW what USED TO BE the "secrets" of Life, then just go and become Truly OPEN.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

Belinda wrote:

Mainly I want to discuss Alexis Jacobi's gnostic stance , as I was troubled by the split between the God of Nature and the God of goodness, beauty, and truth.

Well the word 'God' refers to one thing; thee Creator, but in two different senses; in the visible (material) sense, in the spiritual or invisible sense.

Understand these two conceptions, and the rest just falls into place.

I think your explanation may rest upon the substance dualism ontology of believers. Briefly, if the Creator created two separate substances that have separate causal systems then the two separate substances can't interact with each other.

Perhaps you would explain what exactly you mean by "senses" and "sense".We may agree yet.

[Lacewing]

Alexis: But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being

Lace: Why would we think there's 'a being'?

Why would we think there's not?

Because a being implies a 'form', and a form implies limitation.

[Lacewing]

And in considering that, we might also consider the true limits of our perception and our language/thinking, as there is so much about the natural world's perception and communication and interaction and vastness that we do not understand.

How can you possibly know there is some, "vastness that we do not understand?" If there are limits to what we know, one of those limits is on how much is not known. This emphasis on, "what is not known," is as mystical as any religion.

Vast is not indicating a specific amount, nor is it indicating what is not known. It is simply an acknowledgement that there is a lot that we don't know, and that we may not be capable of comprehending due to our human limitations.

[RCSaunders]

And in considering that, we might also consider the true limits of our perception and our language/thinking, as there is so much about the natural world's perception and communication and interaction and vastness that we do not understand.

How can you possibly know there is some, "vastness that we do not understand?" If there are limits to what we know, one of those limits is on how much is not known. This emphasis on, "what is not known," is as mystical as any religion.

Vast is not indicating a specific amount, nor is it indicating what is not known. It is simply an acknowledgement that there is a lot that we don't know, and that we may not be capable of comprehending due to our human limitations.

But, what's the point. Nothing can be based on what we don't know.

Only what we know can possibly matter. I think the emphasis on what is not known is almost always an excuse for allowing some absurd imaginary fictions, like gods and the supernatural to be considered legitimate concepts. It even infects the sciences. We don't know where everything came from so there must be evolution, or a big bang, but they are both simply conjecture based on very flimsy evidence. They are not science, for example.

[henry quirk]

Alexis: But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being

Lace: Why would we think there's 'a being'?

Why would we think there's not?

Because a being implies a 'form', and a form implies limitation.

oh my, such limited and limiting thinkin'

[henry quirk]

Everything that is perceived is evidence of itself. What is the evidence for, "a being?"

Thee 'Mind', Itself.

Whether you know it or not, you hit the nail square on the head, age.

[henry quirk]

Thee Universe is CERTAINLY NOT a "nice little camp fire" (with logs arranged "just so", nor with a circle of stones surrounding those logs) like It was 'started' AT ALL, by some absent thing, NOR ordered and nice, neither.

Yeah, it is.

[henry quirk]

become Truly OPEN

Nope. I'm selectively porous to the world, but I won't be unthinkingly open to it.

[Lacewing]

It is simply an acknowledgement that there is a lot that we don't know, and that we may not be capable of comprehending due to our human limitations.

Nothing can be based on what we don't know.

Only what we know can possibly matter. I think the emphasis on what is not known is almost always an excuse for allowing some absurd imaginary fictions, like gods and the supernatural to be considered legitimate concepts. It even infects the sciences. We don't know where everything came from so there must be evolution, or a big bang, but they are both simply conjecture based on very flimsy evidence. They are not science, for example.

I see what you're saying, yet it is perfectly reasonable and useful for me to acknowledge that there is much we humans do not know. Are you just being argumentative? Some on this forum act like they know 'the truth' about almost everything, while their claims of gods and truths are clearly as limited and distorted as they continually demonstrate themselves to be. It's more honest and courageous to acknowledge the unknown, than to superimpose one's ego over it.

Thriving despite the unknown is a very useful ability to develop.

[Lacewing]

Alexis: But the created world, obviously, had to have been created by an intelligent being

Lace: Why would we think there's 'a being'?

Why would we think there's not?

Because a being implies a 'form', and a form implies limitation.

oh my, such limited and limiting thinkin'

Please explain. How is there 'a being' without a form?

[henry quirk]

Because a being implies a 'form', and a form implies limitation.

oh my, such limited and limiting thinkin'

Please explain. How is there 'a being' without a form?

Ask God.

[Lacewing]

Please explain. How is there 'a being' without a form?

Ask God.

What a cheesy stupid answer. You can't explain (nor take responsibility for) your own dumbass claims and childish responses.

[henry quirk]

Please explain. How is there 'a being' without a form?

Ask God.

What a cheesy stupid answer. You can't explain (nor take responsibility for) your own dumbass claims and childish responses.

you brought up formlessness, not me: not seein' why I have to defend sumthin' I never asserted