Christianity

[henry quirk]

Call it whatever flavor you want. It's still ice cream.

hello comrade!

[Nick_A]

Nick,

Is Man born free or does human being exist between two worlds making us a slave to the struggle between these two forces manifesting s above and below? The frightening truth is that Man is not free but only has the potential "TO BE."

Man, each man, every man, is born free. The principal lie of what you call the beast or the great beast is that man is not free and that he must earn freedom (that freedom or, more properly, self-possession is bestowed), or that he can never be free so he best settle down and wear the leash like a good pup.

Is Man born free. We will agree that a baby is dependent on either their parents or the state. At a certain age they have the potential to acquire free will but the reality of the acquired human condition prevents it. Man is governed by negative emotions. Is it really free will to deny universal purpose? Isn't that what Satan did. He denied universal purpose and believed he could do it better. As residents of Plato's cave we do not know what universal purpose is and the dominance of our negative emotions prevents conscience from feeling it. Under these conditions how can we presume that Man is free with the ability "To Be" which is the goal of freedom. In reality Man sails on Plato's ship of fools doomed to argue opinions into eternity. Yet there are some who smell the coffee and have felt the direction of the North Star and the path to freedom

As to man's role in the struggle: he's a player, not a slave; he brings to the struggle his own causal and creative power; man is the wildcard neither side can take for granted or dismiss.

It means respect for the laws that make freedom possible. As society devolves and becomes more fragmented in the battle for rights, Society loses its respect for these essential laws

Law (as in legalisms, legislation) is, at best, codification of natural law, at worst, just directions backed up by a club. Freedom can be supported by legislation or undercut by it, but freedom doesn't extend from it.

Those essential laws are the natural, self-evident principles: They can be recognized (and codified, if need be) or ignored and violated; man, at his best, embodies them, but they originate with the Creator.

If a person demands to be protected from theft, have they given up a necessary right or are certain rights necesary to be given up for the sake of freedom.

Inviolate & Inalienable. Agreein' to follow a convention is not an agreement to refrain from self-defense. No one gives up a natural right. Freedom and one's natural right to one's self (life, liberty, property) are one and the same.

Is it worth sacrificing the freedom to kill for the sake of freedom from the intent of BLM and Antifa?

I don't understand the question.

Who decides who is "worth killin"?

As I reckon it: killin' is permissible in self-defense, defense of the other, and defense of property (with property as cause, one must take care, cuz there's always a schmuck [hi, age!] lookin' to divorce reason, common sense, and sanity from the discussion and accuse one of bein' willin' to kill over a toothpick).

Since we have learned that government leads to corruption, we are better off without it in the cause of the good capable for human being. The government is only concerned with power and not the good so struggles against awakening ideas

Yes, we're better off without government (governors, legislators).

who stops the imaginary belief in "progress?"

You do.

We don't IMO have natural rights but we do have the potential for conscience to evolve. A person can evolve to feel objective conscience. A world believing in objective conscience could produce a super civilization. Spinoza explains

Natural rights is simply, as example, your right to yourself (your life, liberty, and property). You are yours. What you mix yourself with thru effort is yours. Man is a creature of reason, conscience, and freewill. None of us need to evolve anything. We do, I think, need to choose better.

But suppose we don't have either the power to reason beyond associative thought, conscience, or free will but only have them as human potentials, we don't have the freedom "To Be" so cannot be considered free men

How do you define social progress?

I don't. Best I can tell, social progress is just made up hooey. The emphasis is the many, usually at the expense of the few or one.

Social progress would be the result of a society awakening to its source

What IYO is the GOOD?

That which promotes self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance is good. The Good -- the source of self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance -- is the Creator.


That which denigrates self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance is evil. The Evil is the Creator's absence (not referrin', by the way, to my deistic view that He is uninvolved directly in the world)

The true study of Spinoza's ideas involves the study of our own particular nature, seeking to clarify the confusions and passive emotions brought about through our own imagination and, by using Reason and Intuition, to direct our mind toward union with our Eternal Essential Being.


The universe is the body of God We can understand better the divine body by studying how our body works. "Know Thyself."

If Man is governed by passive negative emotions, can he develop the conscious potential to use reason and intuition free of self justifying imagination to direct our mind toward union with our Eternal Essential Being.


If we can come to agree on what human being is, we would understand better what human freedom is, why we don't have it, and the inner path that leads to the freedom to be..

[Belinda]

Nick,

Is Man born free or does human being exist between two worlds making us a slave to the struggle between these two forces manifesting s above and below? The frightening truth is that Man is not free but only has the potential "TO BE."

Man, each man, every man, is born free. The principal lie of what you call the beast or the great beast is that man is not free and that he must earn freedom (that freedom or, more properly, self-possession is bestowed), or that he can never be free so he best settle down and wear the leash like a good pup.

Is Man born free. We will agree that a baby is dependent on either their parents or the state. At a certain age they have the potential to acquire free will but the reality of the acquired human condition prevents it. Man is governed by negative emotions. Is it really free will to deny universal purpose? Isn't that what Satan did. He denied universal purpose and believed he could do it better. As residents of Plato's cave we do not know what universal purpose is and the dominance of our negative emotions prevents conscience from feeling it. Under these conditions how can we presume that Man is free with the ability "To Be" which is the goal of freedom. In reality Man sails on Plato's ship of fools doomed to argue opinions into eternity. Yet there are some who smell the coffee and have felt the direction of the North Star and the path to freedom

As to man's role in the struggle: he's a player, not a slave; he brings to the struggle his own causal and creative power; man is the wildcard neither side can take for granted or dismiss.

It means respect for the laws that make freedom possible. As society devolves and becomes more fragmented in the battle for rights, Society loses its respect for these essential laws

Law (as in legalisms, legislation) is, at best, codification of natural law, at worst, just directions backed up by a club. Freedom can be supported by legislation or undercut by it, but freedom doesn't extend from it.

Those essential laws are the natural, self-evident principles: They can be recognized (and codified, if need be) or ignored and violated; man, at his best, embodies them, but they originate with the Creator.

If a person demands to be protected from theft, have they given up a necessary right or are certain rights necesary to be given up for the sake of freedom.

Inviolate & Inalienable. Agreein' to follow a convention is not an agreement to refrain from self-defense. No one gives up a natural right. Freedom and one's natural right to one's self (life, liberty, property) are one and the same.

Is it worth sacrificing the freedom to kill for the sake of freedom from the intent of BLM and Antifa?

I don't understand the question.

Who decides who is "worth killin"?

As I reckon it: killin' is permissible in self-defense, defense of the other, and defense of property (with property as cause, one must take care, cuz there's always a schmuck [hi, age!] lookin' to divorce reason, common sense, and sanity from the discussion and accuse one of bein' willin' to kill over a toothpick).

Since we have learned that government leads to corruption, we are better off without it in the cause of the good capable for human being. The government is only concerned with power and not the good so struggles against awakening ideas

Yes, we're better off without government (governors, legislators).

who stops the imaginary belief in "progress?"

You do.

We don't IMO have natural rights but we do have the potential for conscience to evolve. A person can evolve to feel objective conscience. A world believing in objective conscience could produce a super civilization. Spinoza explains

Natural rights is simply, as example, your right to yourself (your life, liberty, and property). You are yours. What you mix yourself with thru effort is yours. Man is a creature of reason, conscience, and freewill. None of us need to evolve anything. We do, I think, need to choose better.

But suppose we don't have either the power to reason beyond associative thought, conscience, or free will but only have them as human potentials, we don't have the freedom "To Be" so cannot be considered free men

How do you define social progress?

I don't. Best I can tell, social progress is just made up hooey. The emphasis is the many, usually at the expense of the few or one.

Social progress would be the result of a society awakening to its source

What IYO is the GOOD?

That which promotes self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance is good. The Good -- the source of self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance -- is the Creator.


That which denigrates self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance is evil. The Evil is the Creator's absence (not referrin', by the way, to my deistic view that He is uninvolved directly in the world)

The true study of Spinoza's ideas involves the study of our own particular nature, seeking to clarify the confusions and passive emotions brought about through our own imagination and, by using Reason and Intuition, to direct our mind toward union with our Eternal Essential Being.


The universe is the body of God We can understand better the divine body by studying how our body works. "Know Thyself."

If Man is governed by passive negative emotions, can he develop the conscious potential to use reason and intuition free of self justifying imagination to direct our mind toward union with our Eternal Essential Being.


If we can come to agree on what human being is, we would understand better what human freedom is, why we don't have it, and the inner path that leads to the freedom to be..

Men have no eternal essential being because there is nobody to define what the eternal essential being of man is. Genesis describes how men once had eternal essential being and lost it when Adam ate the fruit and was cast out of Eden.

[henry quirk]

Nick,

If we can come to agree on what human being is, we would understand better what human freedom is, why we don't have it, and the inner path that leads to the freedom to be..

If we all recognized what man is then there'd be no doubt in anyone's mind: man is free, he belongs to himself. But: conscience can be ignored in favor of appetite.

[Nick_A]

Nick,

If we can come to agree on what human being is, we would understand better what human freedom is, why we don't have it, and the inner path that leads to the freedom to be..

If we all recognized what man is then there'd be no doubt in anyone's mind: man is free, he belongs to himself. But: conscience can be ignored in favor of appetite.

Do we really knw what Man is?

Jacob Needleman wrote in the preface to his book "Lost Christianity."

But in fact, no such assumption of moral authority by secular humanism, has
taken hold or now seems in any way likely or justified. The modern era, the era of science, while witnessing the phenomenal acceleration of scientific discovery and its applications in technological innovation, has brought the
world the inconceivable slaughter and chaos of modern war along with
the despair of ethical dilemmas arising from new technologies that all
at once project humanity’s essence-immorality onto the
entire planet: global injustice, global heartlessness and the global
disintegration of the normal patterns of life
that have guided mankind for millenia. Neither the secular philosophies
of our epoch nor its theories of human nature—pragmatism, positivism,
Marxism, liberalism, humanism, behaviorism, biological determinism,
psychoanalysis–nor the traditional doctrines of the religions, in the way we have understood them, seem able to confront or explain the crimes of humanity in our era, nor offer wise and compassionate guidance through the labyrinth of paralyzingly new ethical problems.

What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding
of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the
heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

Obviously a new understanding of God is impossible. The only ones open to have awakened have been born from above. God as the ineffable source of consciousness within which the of the contents of consciousness or materialistic creation function requires top down deductive reason rather than the bottom up inductive reason as the source of discussion.

But if the human condition prevents the majority from the benefits of being born from above, a person can contemplate what a human being is. The efforts of those like Plato offer the directions for contemplation in which human being is blocked from remembering and acting from universal purpose.

The basic question for a seeker of truth is: Is the purpose of our universe to serve Man or does the being of Man exist to serve the needs of our universe?

If the purpose of our universe is to serve Man, then Sisyphus pushing the boulder up hill only to have it fall down defies education, We should know how psychologically to solve this problem. If there is no way to solve it and suicide is the best alternative, Peggy Lee describes the best way out. “if that’s all there is, then let’s keep dancing. Let’s break out the booze and have a ball, if that’s all there is…”

Good rump is of course a delightful alternative to suicide but people age and the problem of meaning returns. But if Man is only prisoner in Plato's cave believing himself free

None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.
-Johann von Goethe

If Goethe is right a seeker of truth begins to see how he lives in imagination. How can he let his pride down and admit that he is asleep? The tripartite soul described by plato asserts that Man lives in opposition to himself. Christianity asserts that the tripartite soul has the potential for unity: I AM.

John 8:57-58
The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?” Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth before Abraham was even born, I Am!”

Absurd you say? Is it really? What does I AM mean? God said "I Am that I Am". How does it relate to what human being is. Can Man consciously evolve from a plurality in opposition to itself into a unity: I AM. I've discovered that the more I understand Christianity, the more I don't understand. Socrates said "I Know Nothing." I can see why he said it. It is the beginning of wisdom

[Nick_A]

Belinda

If we can come to agree on what human being is, we would understand better what human freedom is, why we don't have it, and the inner path that leads to the freedom to be..

Men have no eternal essential being because there is nobody to define what the eternal essential being of man is. Genesis describes how men once had eternal essential being and lost it when Adam ate the fruit and was cast out of Eden.

Some believe that humanity needs people to tell them what to believe. Others suggest that humanity has the power to remember universal purpose and Man's obligation within it.

[henry quirk]

Nick,

Do we really knw what Man is?

More important: do you know what you are?

God, I think, is interested in individuals. That path up the mountain is for solitaries.

[Nick_A]

Nick,

Do we really knw what Man is?

More important: do you know what you are?

God, I think, is interested in individuals. That path up the mountain is for solitaries.

True, like Socrates, I know nothing. But we can ask first what dogs are. Then we can ask what an individual dog is and how it reflects what dogs are. I am suggesting that once we agree on what Man is, we can discuss what an individual Man is and how it reflects collective Man. In other words, what is the relationship between the collective and the individual?

[Immanuel Can]

Nick,

Do we really knw what Man is?

More important: do you know what you are?

God, I think, is interested in individuals. That path up the mountain is for solitaries.

John Locke noted this fact long ago: that God calls men to be judged by Him not as collectives but always as individuals. He made a lot out of that fact, including the whole basis for human rights itself.

And if you think about it, it's unfair any other way; for if we were judged as collectives, then an evil or unjust person would simply "get a pass" if he or she happened to be associated with the right collective, and a good person would be doomed by mere association if he or she was found to be living in an evil collective.

Either way, that's not justice.

So the moral responsibility or culpability for a person's "road up the mountain" always does, indeed, fall squarely on the shoulders of the individual. For better or worse, we own our own choices.

[Dubious]

Do we really knw what Man is?

...hello comrade and to all other comrades out there!

[henry quirk]

Do we really knw what Man is?

...hello comrade and to all other comrades out there!

Wrong comrade...

Do we really knw what Man is?

...comrade.

[promethean75]

"More important: do you know what you are?" - Henry Quirk (as Thing Fish)

[henry quirk]

Nick,

what is the relationship between the collective and the individual?

Strained, as it probably ought to be.

-----

Mannie,

For better or worse, we own our own choices.

Speakin' for myself: I wouldn't have it any other way.

[henry quirk]

"More important: do you know what you are?" - Henry Quirk (as Thing Fish)

Hello, comrade!

[Nick_A]

Nick,

Do we really knw what Man is?

More important: do you know what you are?

God, I think, is interested in individuals. That path up the mountain is for solitaries.

Could you back up for a moment. Am I wrong to assume you are a Deist and as such do not see any personal Gods interacting with humanity. I am the same way and believe our source and the source of consciousness is beyond the limits of time and space and what creates the material contents of consciousness within time and space. The Son in the image of God is within creation serving as an intermediary between the father and Man. That is why the Son and the Cross are the essence of Christianity. What they have provided makes conscious evolution possible. But how is a personal God part Deism unless you believe the Father and the Son are the same?

So if you believe God is concerned with individuals, what is the deist God concept you refer to?