Christianity

[Age]

one presumes people use standard and precise philosophical words for philosophical ideas, or at least try to do so.

I believe if one is confronted by an unfamiliar term or notion, or a notion or term is used in what one thinks is an novel way, one ought do a little research (or mebbe just ask what the other means)

I agree. Moreover it's the duty of the transmitter to send accurate and lucid information.

How could the transmitter send 'accurate' information when the transmitter can NOT KNOW FOR SURE how "another" has received/interpreted previous information.

For example, how does one accurately and lucidly transmit and send the word 'God', as 'accurate and lucid' information to say 'you'', when they do NOT know how 'you' define word 'God'?

Now, add to this the number of readers/listeners receiving this word as 'information', and imagine how quickly this word, and information, becomes lost in translation. For example, how could one send the 'accurate and lucid information' that 'God created Everything, in the beginning', and NOT have this MISINTERPRETED by 'you', human beings?

After all, absolutely NONE of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have seemingly be able to gain this 'information' without MISINTERPRETING 'it'.

[Age]

it's the duty of the transmitter to send accurate and lucid information.

which I did

I cannot know, am not responsible for, what you know from the start

I can answer your questions, but I can't anticipate them (not regularly or accurately)

if you think I use deism in a novel way: ask me about it (sumthin' you still haven't done)

Asking "others" about their views, assumptions, beliefs, and claims is GREAT advice, to me. It is just a pity that VERY RARELY are CLARIFYING questions answered, or CLARIFIED at all, as PROVED True above.

save the lectures and preachiness for your book club or coffee klatch

[Age]

one presumes people use standard and precise philosophical words for philosophical ideas, or at least try to do so.

I believe if one is confronted by an unfamiliar term or notion, or a notion or term is used in what one thinks is an novel way, one ought do a little research (or mebbe just ask what the other means)

I agree. Moreover it's the duty of the transmitter to send accurate and lucid information.

Why did Jesus speak in parables? It seems superficially as an unnecessary attempt to confuse the issue.

As a lesson to learn NOT to ASSUME, and to CLARIFY, 'in the beginning'.

The longer human beings make the mistake of ASSUMING, before CLARIFYING, the more successful the outcome will be.

Why not just say it like it is and let a person decide if it is worth listening to? From Matthew 13:

…12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’ 14In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.…

Once thee Truth is UNDERSTAND ALL-OF-THIS makes PERFECT SENSE.

The speed at which Life, Itself, evolves into coming to KNOW Thy Self, this is ALL part of the journey.

[Age]

Why did Jesus speak in parables?

And Jesus said,

“For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”

Those who were with Him from the Pharisees heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?”

Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now that you maintain, ‘We see,’ your sin remains."

"jesus" said a LOT of things, just like a LOT of OTHER human beings have and do, but what is THE POINT, to you, of what "jesus" said here?

[Age]

Why did Jesus speak in parables? It seems superficially as an unnecessary attempt to confuse the issue. Why not just say it like it is and let a person decide if it is worth listening to? From Matthew 13:

The parables of Jesus represent the art of creative language at its best.The Parables are sharply and elegantly aimed at the mainly rural or village audience that listened to Jesus. It's we modern urbans who have a problem with the parables.

I usually like Henry's brief and succinct style, and he mars it by sloppy vocabulary.

Doesn't it seem unfair to you? The person who has will be given more but the one who doesn't will lose the little he has?

The person who has intelligence will be give more wisdom, and the opposite is also true.

Just find out what the word 'intelligence' means or refers to, and who, EXACTLY, has the most intelligence, then this, ALSO, ALL makes PERFECT SENSE.

Or, were you under some ILLUSION or ASSUMING that 'who has' was in relation to some material or monetary thing?

[Age]

Doesn't it seem unfair to you? The person who has will be given more but the one who doesn't will lose the little he has?

Not at all, if you look at the context of that parable.

The one who "had little" is the unfaithful steward.

Is this thee One and ONLY context, and EXACTLY what was meant?

Or, is this just your OWN view of things here "immanuel can", of which it is just one of could be countless OTHER views of things here?

He "had little" because he refused to believe at all in the goodness or generosity of his Lord, so he buried all that he had, and had nothing by way of profit to show for all that the Lord had invested in him. He was so afraid, so convinced that his Master was "a hard man," the kind who would "reap where he had not sowed," (which he clearly was not) and so nervous that his Lord would punish him if he lost the money, that he refused to trust in the goodness and generostiy of his Lord, and so wasted his opportunity. He didn't even invest it in a bank.

What a fool.

He also loses what little he has, because even what he has was not his own in the first place -- it was a stewardship entrusted to him from his Lord's money. And he did squat with it. So he doesn't deserve squat.

But the reason the other two had something is that they believed in the goodness of their Lord and Master...they took his entrusted funds, and built on them, secure in the knowledge that he would reward them for being faithful to their charge, and would forgive them for what they lost, if they lost anything, because he would know their hearts are in the right place...they were trying to honour him, and they believed in his goodness.

They acted like men of faith.

So it's a parable about faith in God: what do you believe God is like? Is He a "hard man," one who has only given you life and opportuntiies in order to demand that which you cannot give? Or is He a generous Lord, one who has given us many gifts that we can use for His service and bring joy to Him...for which He will amply reward us?

The key question, then, is "What do you think God is really like?"

[Age]

Do you sense a relationship between what is written in Matthew 13 and John 9 with Plato's description of the darkness of Plato's Cave?

No, not really.

I think Plato's cave is much more like our media-saturated culture. Consider the "shadows" that the cave-dwellers take for real. Consider their hatred of those who argue they're shadows, and their "games" based on the shadows...

Suppose that the external world for humanity is Plato's Cave. It is the domain of the Prince of darkness. What is darkness for the inner man? It is the absence of spiritual light made possible by our interpretations. Darkness means ignorance

There is this old story of the devil and an imp walking down the street. All of a sudden they see a man picking up a piece of the truth. The imp is terrified and tells the devil we will be exposed. The devil turns to him with a smile. Don't worry my young friend. He may have found a piece of the truth but we will help him organize it. All is well.

Freedom from the darkness of the cave and leaving the cave is through inwardly turning towards the light. For Christianity it is metanoia or inwardly turning towards the light. Either way it is the same. Christianity goes on to say it is impossible without the help of the Spirit.

That is why Jesus spoke in parables. Otherwise this tendency to interpret and classify will force a person to lose everything if not sufficiently evolved to profit by Jesus' sacrifice rather than devolving it into the many forms of secularized interpretation.

There is just a process taking place, which just takes some time.

See, because of what the 'devil' is, exactly, and the way the 'devil' works, if 'you', human beings, had come to see and know 'too much' earlier, before things take place in the 'right order', then 'you' would be far more greedy and selfish than 'you', adults, are now, in the days when this is being written, and then what is about to take place to 'you' ones would not have occurred.

[Age]

Suppose that the external world for humanity is Plato's Cave.

No, I don't suppose that, at all. There's actually no reason to suppose it's true.

Anyone who has experienced the hypocrisy and absurdity of the external world as well as the same conditions existing in their own internal world will know it's true and that they live in darkness with the need to let the light in.

VERY, VERY True.

But the ONLY 'hypocrisy and absurdity' experienced between the 'external world' from their own 'internal world' is just 'that', in the 'eternal world', which has been taught and gained from "other" adult beings, and their own 'DISTORTED internal worlds'.

When one just LOOKS AT the 'external world' from thee Truly OPEN viewpoint/perspective, and are NOT seeing from one's own previously obtained 'internal world', then there is absolutely NO 'hypocrisy' NOR 'absurdity' AT ALL.

[Age]

Anyone who has experienced the hypocrisy and absurdity of the external world...

There's nothing at all "hypocritical" or "absurd" about reality. You're speaking of the human beings around you.

...their own internal world ...

Now you've got it. The hypocrisy is a human phenomenon.

For example, the ABSURD and VERY HYPOCRITICAL CLAIM that God is a "he".

'you', "immanuel can", are a GREAT and PRIME example of 'hypocrisy' for future human beings of what NOT to do, nor be like.

There is, indeed, something wrong with us.

There REALLY is with 'you', adult human beings. Work that out, and then 'you' are on the way to a much better life, for "yourselves".

[Belinda]

one presumes people use standard and precise philosophical words for philosophical ideas, or at least try to do so.

I believe if one is confronted by an unfamiliar term or notion, or a notion or term is used in what one thinks is an novel way, one ought do a little research (or mebbe just ask what the other means)

I agree. Moreover it's the duty of the transmitter to send accurate and lucid information.

How could the transmitter send 'accurate' information when the transmitter can NOT KNOW FOR SURE how "another" has received/interpreted previous information.

For example, how does one accurately and lucidly transmit and send the word 'God', as 'accurate and lucid' information to say 'you'', when they do NOT know how 'you' define word 'God'?

Now, add to this the number of readers/listeners receiving this word as 'information', and imagine how quickly this word, and information, becomes lost in translation. For example, how could one send the 'accurate and lucid information' that 'God created Everything, in the beginning', and NOT have this MISINTERPRETED by 'you', human beings?

After all, absolutely NONE of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have seemingly be able to gain this 'information' without MISINTERPRETING 'it'.

Age, the transmitter can't know for sure. In situations such as air traffic control, and instructions on how to use some product, then the transmitter can be very explicit indeed. In a philosophy discussion it would be possible to define terms afresh at every post, but it would be cumbersome and unnecessary when a dictionary of philosophy already defines terms and often explains the history of the term . In the case of the term 'deism' its history is entertaining and helps with understanding what it means.

For example, how could one send the 'accurate and lucid information' that 'God created Everything, in the beginning', and NOT have this MISINTERPRETED by 'you', human beings?

(Age)

The word 'God' once had a precise meaning for people who simply believed what their priest told them what to believe. The word 'God' is not explicit now, and is usually devotional when it's used. There are more explicit terms for philosophers to use.

[henry quirk]

oops, I done fucked up, uwot!

Who doesn't? Think nothing of it.

[Age]

I agree. Moreover it's the duty of the transmitter to send accurate and lucid information.

How could the transmitter send 'accurate' information when the transmitter can NOT KNOW FOR SURE how "another" has received/interpreted previous information.

For example, how does one accurately and lucidly transmit and send the word 'God', as 'accurate and lucid' information to say 'you'', when they do NOT know how 'you' define word 'God'?

Now, add to this the number of readers/listeners receiving this word as 'information', and imagine how quickly this word, and information, becomes lost in translation. For example, how could one send the 'accurate and lucid information' that 'God created Everything, in the beginning', and NOT have this MISINTERPRETED by 'you', human beings?

After all, absolutely NONE of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have seemingly be able to gain this 'information' without MISINTERPRETING 'it'.

Age, the transmitter can't know for sure.

So, then how does the "transmitter" perform their "duty", and send 'accurate and lucid information, exactly?

In situations such as air traffic control, and instructions on how to use some product, then the transmitter can be very explicit indeed. In a philosophy discussion it would be possible to define terms afresh at every post, but it would be cumbersome and unnecessary when a dictionary of philosophy already defines terms and often explains the history of the term .

What 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, continually failed to RECOGNIZE and SEE is that even your OWN made up dictionaries were NOT in 'agreement'. So, which dictionary am I supposed to use and refer to, EXACTLY?

In the case of the term 'deism' its history is entertaining and helps with understanding what it means.

For just about EVERY word, and if NOT, then EVERY word, its history can be seen to be entertaining and which can help with understanding what 'it' means.

But, AGAIN, which version of 'history', like which dictionary version, am I supposed to follow, use, and be led by, EXACTLY?

For example, how could one send the 'accurate and lucid information' that 'God created Everything, in the beginning', and NOT have this MISINTERPRETED by 'you', human beings?

(Age)

The word 'God' once had a precise meaning for people who simply believed what their priest told them what to believe.

Yes. And, 'you', human beings, have CHANGED and still are continually CHANGING that so-called 'precise meaning'. The actual CHANGE is usually done in favor of what BELIEF one ALREADY HAS and IS CURRENTLY MAINTAINING. As evidenced and PROVED True throughout this forum and human history.

The word 'God' is not explicit now, and is usually devotional when it's used.

So, how does one transmit the term 'God' now, accurately and lucidly?

There are more explicit terms for philosophers to use.

Like what, for example?

And, while we are here what, EXACTLY, does the word and term 'philosopher' mean or refer to, to you?

[Belinda]

one presumes people use standard and precise philosophical words for philosophical ideas, or at least try to do so.

I believe if one is confronted by an unfamiliar term or notion, or a notion or term is used in what one thinks is an novel way, one ought do a little research (or mebbe just ask what the other means)

I agree. Moreover it's the duty of the transmitter to send accurate and lucid information.

How could the transmitter send 'accurate' information when the transmitter can NOT KNOW FOR SURE how "another" has received/interpreted previous information.

For example, how does one accurately and lucidly transmit and send the word 'God', as 'accurate and lucid' information to say 'you'', when they do NOT know how 'you' define word 'God'?

Now, add to this the number of readers/listeners receiving this word as 'information', and imagine how quickly this word, and information, becomes lost in translation. For example, how could one send the 'accurate and lucid information' that 'God created Everything, in the beginning', and NOT have this MISINTERPRETED by 'you', human beings?

After all, absolutely NONE of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have seemingly be able to gain this 'information' without MISINTERPRETING 'it'.

Some technical lexicons and phrases are very precise. If you heard expert mathematicians talking maths you'd not hear any misunderstandings. Professions and trades are have their own peculiar lexicons and phrases. For instance in medical practice many words and even some phrases are Latin or ancient Greek , dead languages that don't evolve with common usage, so that their will be no misunderstanding between transmitter and receiver. Naturally patients are not expected to be au fait with medical terminology and it is part of the medic's job to translate instructions or advice into common language .

If you are a professional communicator such as an ambulance driver or air traffic control officer you will be trained in the language of communication. E.g. "Message received and understood". "Will co." "Roger and out" "Over". And also map interpretation and navigation, both of which are explicit.

Religious language is neither scientific nor common speech and is not even meant to inform but is devotional or performative. Philosophers who talk about God have to define the term before they begin their dissertation.

Your question about which 'expert' or authority to believe is a practical question, which school teachers have to teach the answer to. There are guidelines all based on scepticism(skepticism) towards motives and prejudices, own and other people's.

[Nick_A]

Doesn't it seem unfair to you? The person who has will be given more but the one who doesn't will lose the little he has?

Not at all, if you look at the context of that parable.

The one who "had little" is the unfaithful steward. He "had little" because he refused to believe at all in the goodness or generosity of his Lord, so he buried all that he had, and had nothing by way of profit to show for all that the Lord had invested in him. He was so afraid, so convinced that his Master was "a hard man," the kind who would "reap where he had not sowed," (which he clearly was not) and so nervous that his Lord would punish him if he lost the money, that he refused to trust in the goodness and generostiy of his Lord, and so wasted his opportunity. He didn't even invest it in a bank.

What a fool.

He also loses what little he has, because even what he has was not his own in the first place -- it was a stewardship entrusted to him from his Lord's money. And he did squat with it. So he doesn't deserve squat.

But the reason the other two had something is that they believed in the goodness of their Lord and Master...they took his entrusted funds, and built on them, secure in the knowledge that he would reward them for being faithful to their charge, and would forgive them for what they lost, if they lost anything, because he would know their hearts are in the right place...they were trying to honour him, and they believed in his goodness.

They acted like men of faith.

So it's a parable about faith in God: what do you believe God is like? Is He a "hard man," one who has only given you life and opportuntiies in order to demand that which you cannot give? Or is He a generous Lord, one who has given us many gifts that we can use for His service and bring joy to Him...for which He will amply reward us?

The key question, then, is "What do you think God is really like?"

There are several reasons we don't understand each other concerning Christianity. The first is your belief in the personal God which is the result of Christianity becoming the state religion of Rome and the forced adoption of the Hebrew personal God. The God of Christianity is more like the ineffable or the ONE in which the being of Man is within.

The second is the belief that to be a Christian all a person must do is to believe in the Christ. I believe we cannot do it simply because as a plurality, some parts of our collective selves believe but the majority doesn't which is why Man turns in circles.

The third is what Christian rebirth means for Christianity. You seem to believe that Man as he is must believe in a personal God concerned with what we DO. I believe that the essential purpose for Christianity is rebirth, what we ARE, and the human potential with help from the Spirit, to become the evolution of being called the New Man.

The exoteric purpose for Christianity is concerned with what the Great Beast does. The inner or esoteric purpose of Christianity is a perennial oral tradition which is private. It is passed on only when the student is ready.

We may not understand each other but doesn't mean we must come to blows

[Immanuel Can]

There are several reasons we don't understand each other concerning Christianity.

I understand you just fine. I just sometimes don't really agree with you. That's a different proposition, of course.

Christianity becoming the state religion of Rome

You're speaking of Catholicism, clearly. I never am, when I say "Christianity."

...some parts of our collective selves believe but the majority doesn't...

I don't see that this matters at all.

If you are on some project to "save civilization" through democratic adoption of some formal religion, you might think it matters. I do not. And I'm certain the Lord does not think such a thing matters either. He was not exactly known for currying favour with the majority, was He?

You seem to believe that Man as he is must believe in a personal God concerned with what we DO. I believe that the essential purpose for Christianity is rebirth, what we ARE,

No, I don't believe that what we "do" is determinative. You are right to say it's what we "are" that ultimately matters. But what we "do" is a reflection, as well, of what we "are." Do you really think that a person can just say "my mind's in the right place," and then act like it's not? And would you suppose that to be what real "metanoia" is? Of course not. A person who sincerely believes something will manifest it in his actions as well. And if he does not, then in what sense can we say he "believes it" at all?

That's the way Christ saw it, too. He said, "By their fruits you shall know them." The "fruits" are the actions. And while it's the inner state of the tree that makes it healthy or unhealthy, the only way human beings know is by what appears in the fruits. As Jesus said, we either regard the tree as good or bad by means of its fruits.

The exoteric purpose for Christianity

I know all about the gnostics, the esoterics, and the so-called "Illuminati." It's just another priesthood, really...no less corrupt and self-serving than the Catholic hierarchy has so often proved to be. By claiming to have "esoteric knowledge," they make themselves seem prestigious, special and important. But they are utterly not so.

It's the heart-state of the individual that's determinative. On that, we both agree. But I do not look to priestcraft and shenanigans with "esoteric secrets". God speaks plainly. And I believe it's a sin to take light and try to turn it into obscurity.

That's the sin behind Gnosticism: the desire to hijack the plain truth of God in order to induce some men to bow to other men.