Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

As you know, blindness in the Bible has a special meaning

I "know" this, do I?

And what is this "special meaning"?

I agree it means not merely physical disability, but rather something more. But you'll have to tell me what you think I "know." I can't say what you're imagining.

[jayjacobus]

Let me stop you there Gus. No I am not. Quite why you struggle so is a mystery, but I have asserted many times that any story that cannot be proven wrong may be true. I have also made it clear that I like stories and have no axe to grind with anyone who chooses to believe them, but that I reserve my contempt for those who demand I too believe their preferred story. If that really is beyond your comprehension, I shall apologise for for every sleight and henceforth treat you with the pity your cerebral faculties deserve.

Though there are some aspects of your views that you often clarify -- thank you -- I think that I pretty well understand your position. So it is not that I struggle with some sort of *mystery* about what you declare, but rather that I do regard it as a mystery-of-sorts that so many work so hard to undermine the Christian religion. I shall not conceal from you that I see you as one deeply involved in this project. And I shall not conceal from you that I regard this work, and thus your efforts here, as nefarious. So what interests me more than pointing to any individual and making some statement about them, personally, is much more in seeing these activities, and your activities, in a critical light and as I have said *from a certain distance above and looking down*.

What keys me in to your investment in this epic struggle is the calumnious terms you use to describe those who work to defend the metaphysical ground -- all that ground that as you say "cannot be proven wrong" but, of course you really mean "cannot be proven true". My own view is that you are, of course, very wrong that it cannot be 'proven'. It has been proven in the only way that proof functions: in what has been created by the people and the cultures that have held to the metaphysical structure. It is that it requires an eye different from the sort of eye you define through acts of your will to see and understand these things.

The other aspect is that I myself am, like so many, within the grip of a general nihilism. And this is another aspect of what interests me -- the nihilistic culture, the nihilistic attitude, that surrounds us. It is a manifestation of a type of absolutism, a negating absolutism. Those who are so invested in it don't seem able to see their own 'structure'. So as you are fighting against me I am also fighting against you while simultaneously fighting inner battles. And that battle is to overcome nihilism.

This also interests me:

"I reserve my contempt for those who demand I too believe their preferred story".

I have a few comments.

One is that I might suggest to you, and anyone who sees and thinks like you, that you would do well to consider the ramifications of the total undermining of what you call the 'story' at the metaphysical core of Christianity. Even if you are not a believer, and even if you cannot believe, it is possible that you might contribute positively to the community that discerns a need to hold to the metaphysics. The reason being is that, for Europe, Christianity has been the substantial building material, and also the binding glue, that made it possible and held it together. So if, as I assert, your *acidic activities* unbind that glue, and if you destabilize at a metaphysical level the very individual himself, I would suggest that you make efforts to better understand the consequences of these actions and your choices in regard to the results.

It really does have to be said that when you (when one) examines the core of, say, the Catholic system-of-belief that one really does find there those who really do think that they are 'reining in the Devil's Kingdom'. They see themselves acting as a controlling and restraining force against a certain wildness in man's will. (This came up strongly as I was reading Bernanos' Diary of a Country Priest (I also watched the movie made from it -- quite good I thought). And it also is not hard to understand that in so many ways and through so many manifestations the demos seeks to get out from under the constrains always applied around them and against them by the Authority I often refer to (in capitals!)

So in my view we need to examine what is going on here and why it is going on. This is of course where my own 'conservatism' kicks in: it has become clear to me (to me in any case) that the rebellion against such restraint is a very real but a very problematic topic. And I do of course recognize that by using the word rebellion that I am linking it to the Divine-Demonic interplay and struggle. Naturally, these terms and what they represent can't have much meaning for you, I mean in any authentic sense. But in my view, and in fact, it is really the crux of what is being debated. Christianity is what it is because of its core definitions and these are metaphysical.

Now the book that I am reading -- by Eugene Rose and on the topic of revolutionary nihilism -- does really make some poignant and conclusive statements about the nature of the time we are in. Anytime I read something I try to enter into it as much as I can (like an actor who takes on the role he plays) but with Rose I am finding that in so much of what he writes I had already come to the outline of the crystallized commentary he puts forth. So here I admit to being involved with the meaning of Christian metaphysics. I cannot do otherwise. But with that said I can simultaneously make the effort to enter into other people's belief-system and aslo those that oppose Christianity (with a great deal of adamancy).

If that really is beyond your comprehension, I shall apologise for for every sleight and henceforth treat you with the pity your cerebral faculties deserve.

No no no I assure that I get what you are on about quite well indeed. But you'd have to be the sort of idiot you describe, would you not? to actually believe I don't understand you. One of your attributes is your insulting style and I think that if one insults it can and should be done with real Bergeracian panache; you are far too crude -- but this might be aesthetic taste after all.

In numerous ways I am also on your side (up to a certain point). A tremendous critique can be soundly launched against many many different manifestations of Christianity. But my view, opposed to yours, in that it is those Christians who need to reform themselves, and to better inform themselves, but not the core of the metaphysics that should be done away with. I do not have any problem at all with a resolute critical project against the defects of Christians. But it has to be carried out fairly. So all these topics need to be carefully brought out and talked through. It is quite extensive.

Some people are born with defects. They can be missing a sense, they can have an organ that doesn't work properly and they can have a deformity.

They are not born with bad attitudes. That is an acquired trait. But non-Christians can also have bad attitudes.

A critical project should not focus on Christians alone.

Some leaders have bad attitudes, and they should get the most attention because they can do the most damage.

[Nick_A]

As you know, blindness in the Bible has a special meaning

I "know" this, do I?

And what is this "special meaning"?

I agree it means not merely physical disability, but rather something more. But you'll have to tell me what you think I "know." I can't say what you're imagining.

We live in spiritual darkness as if blind. To be born from above means inwardly turning towards the light. This is possible with the help of the Spirit.

The Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re-birth". This is their central idea. ... The Gospels are from beginning to end all about this possible self-evolution. They are psychological documents. They are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding. ... Everyone has an outer side that has been developed by his contact with life and an inner side which remains vague, uncertain, undeveloped. ... For that reason the teaching of inner evolution must be so formed that it does not fall solely on the outer side of man. It must fall there first, but be capable of penetrating more deeply and awakening the man himself --the inner, unorganized man. A man evolves internally through his deeper reflection, not through his outer life-controlled side. He evolves through the spirit of his understanding and by inner consent to what he sees as truth. The psychological meanings of the relatively fragmentary teaching recorded in the Gospels refers to this deeper, inner side of everyone.

- Maurice Nicoll; The New Man

[Immanuel Can]

To be born from above means inwardly turning towards the light.

Not even close, Nick.

"Born from above" means "born of God." (1 John 5:1)

All you're talking about "getting excited from within." That's quite a different proposition. It has nothing to do with the light, and nothing to do with losing one's "blindness."

[Nick_A]

To be born from above means inwardly turning towards the light.

Not even close, Nick.

"Born from above" means "born of God." (1 John 5:1)

All you're talking about "getting excited from within." That's quite a different proposition. It has nothing to do with the light, and nothing to do with losing one's "blindness."

Matthew 11;11

Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Being born from above is not an excited emotional state. It is a change in the quality of being made possible by the Spirit. John Had yet to be born again. He was the greatest born of woman but yet had not made the transition in being to being born again and beginning the path into conscious evolution

[Alexis Jacobi]

The distinction you (IC) want to make is, on one hand, semantic since the sentence structure in 1John employs a genative (“been born in of him”). That act implies something more intimate than a decision made by someone to turn toward the light.

This is of course always your emphasis: a more exacting description of a process.

But ‘turning to the light’ is also a common and coherent turn of phrase. It is less direct than, for example, believing and saying that one must abandon one’s own will and submit to a regeneration process. Yet it is far better than other alternatives.

My view is of course that people do what they can. If you can’t ‘agape’ God surely to ‘phileo’ God is a sound alternative. (John 21).

And what about the notion of ‘conscious evolution’? It seems coherent and necessary (unavoidable).

[Immanuel Can]

Being born from above is not an excited emotional state. It is a change in the quality of being made possible by the Spirit.

So far, so good, but...

John Had yet to be born again. He was the greatest born of woman but yet had not made the transition in being to being born again and beginning the path into conscious evolution

You've got the wrong "John."

You're speaking of "John the Baptist," and I was quoting "St. John the Evangelist." They're two different people, so your attempted connection with "greatest born of women" is a product of that mistake. That's J the B, not J the E. And "evolution," whether material, social or personal, is a concept unspoken of entirely in Scripture.

So there's no way that's the right interpretation of things. It takes two wild errors to come up with something like that.

[Nick_A]

Being born from above is not an excited emotional state. It is a change in the quality of being made possible by the Spirit.

So far, so good, but...

John Had yet to be born again. He was the greatest born of woman but yet had not made the transition in being to being born again and beginning the path into conscious evolution

You've got the wrong "John."

You're speaking of "John the Baptist," and I was quoting "St. John the Evangelist." They're two different people, so your attempted connection with "greatest born of women" is a product of that mistake. That's J the B, not J the E. And "evolution," whether material, social or personal, is a concept unspoken of entirely in Scripture.

So there's no way that's the right interpretation of things. It takes two wild errors to come up with something like that.

The Bible quote refers to John the Baptist Why do you need to change it? From Matthew 11.

11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

The experience of being born from above comes from the Spirit being allowed to enter our being. It isn't a matter of choice. When it happens, a person will know it

[Immanuel Can]

Being born from above is not an excited emotional state. It is a change in the quality of being made possible by the Spirit.

So far, so good, but...

John Had yet to be born again. He was the greatest born of woman but yet had not made the transition in being to being born again and beginning the path into conscious evolution

You've got the wrong "John."

You're speaking of "John the Baptist," and I was quoting "St. John the Evangelist." They're two different people, so your attempted connection with "greatest born of women" is a product of that mistake. That's J the B, not J the E. And "evolution," whether material, social or personal, is a concept unspoken of entirely in Scripture.

So there's no way that's the right interpretation of things. It takes two wild errors to come up with something like that.

The Bible quote refers to John the Baptist Why do you need to change it? From Matthew 11.

11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

I recognized the quotation immediately. How would I have known you'd mixed up your "Johns" if I didn't know the quotation in Matthew 11? Of course I knew it.

But it has nothing at all to do with the passage I quoted, which was from 1 John, which is John the Evangelist, not John the Baptist.

[Age]

Let me stop you there Gus. No I am not. Quite why you struggle so is a mystery, but I have asserted many times that any story that cannot be proven wrong may be true. I have also made it clear that I like stories and have no axe to grind with anyone who chooses to believe them, but that I reserve my contempt for those who demand I too believe their preferred story. If that really is beyond your comprehension, I shall apologise for for every sleight and henceforth treat you with the pity your cerebral faculties deserve.

Though there are some aspects of your views that you often clarify -- thank you -- I think that I pretty well understand your position. So it is not that I struggle with some sort of *mystery* about what you declare, but rather that I do regard it as a mystery-of-sorts that so many work so hard to undermine the Christian religion. I shall not conceal from you that I see you as one deeply involved in this project. And I shall not conceal from you that I regard this work, and thus your efforts here, as nefarious. So what interests me more than pointing to any individual and making some statement about them, personally, is much more in seeing these activities, and your activities, in a critical light and as I have said *from a certain distance above and looking down*.

What keys me in to your investment in this epic struggle is the calumnious terms you use to describe those who work to defend the metaphysical ground -- all that ground that as you say "cannot be proven wrong" but, of course you really mean "cannot be proven true". My own view is that you are, of course, very wrong that it cannot be 'proven'. It has been proven in the only way that proof functions: in what has been created by the people and the cultures that have held to the metaphysical structure. It is that it requires an eye different from the sort of eye you define through acts of your will to see and understand these things.

The other aspect is that I myself am, like so many, within the grip of a general nihilism. And this is another aspect of what interests me -- the nihilistic culture, the nihilistic attitude, that surrounds us. It is a manifestation of a type of absolutism, a negating absolutism. Those who are so invested in it don't seem able to see their own 'structure'. So as you are fighting against me I am also fighting against you while simultaneously fighting inner battles. And that battle is to overcome nihilism.

This also interests me:

"I reserve my contempt for those who demand I too believe their preferred story".

I have a few comments.

One is that I might suggest to you, and anyone who sees and thinks like you, that you would do well to consider the ramifications of the total undermining of what you call the 'story' at the metaphysical core of Christianity. Even if you are not a believer, and even if you cannot believe, it is possible that you might contribute positively to the community that discerns a need to hold to the metaphysics. The reason being is that, for Europe, Christianity has been the substantial building material, and also the binding glue, that made it possible and held it together. So if, as I assert, your *acidic activities* unbind that glue, and if you destabilize at a metaphysical level the very individual himself, I would suggest that you make efforts to better understand the consequences of these actions and your choices in regard to the results.

It really does have to be said that when you (when one) examines the core of, say, the Catholic system-of-belief that one really does find there those who really do think that they are 'reining in the Devil's Kingdom'. They see themselves acting as a controlling and restraining force against a certain wildness in man's will. (This came up strongly as I was reading Bernanos' Diary of a Country Priest (I also watched the movie made from it -- quite good I thought). And it also is not hard to understand that in so many ways and through so many manifestations the demos seeks to get out from under the constrains always applied around them and against them by the Authority I often refer to (in capitals!)

So in my view we need to examine what is going on here and why it is going on. This is of course where my own 'conservatism' kicks in: it has become clear to me (to me in any case) that the rebellion against such restraint is a very real but a very problematic topic. And I do of course recognize that by using the word rebellion that I am linking it to the Divine-Demonic interplay and struggle. Naturally, these terms and what they represent can't have much meaning for you, I mean in any authentic sense. But in my view, and in fact, it is really the crux of what is being debated. Christianity is what it is because of its core definitions and these are metaphysical.

Now the book that I am reading -- by Eugene Rose and on the topic of revolutionary nihilism -- does really make some poignant and conclusive statements about the nature of the time we are in. Anytime I read something I try to enter into it as much as I can (like an actor who takes on the role he plays) but with Rose I am finding that in so much of what he writes I had already come to the outline of the crystallized commentary he puts forth. So here I admit to being involved with the meaning of Christian metaphysics. I cannot do otherwise. But with that said I can simultaneously make the effort to enter into other people's belief-system and aslo those that oppose Christianity (with a great deal of adamancy).

If that really is beyond your comprehension, I shall apologise for for every sleight and henceforth treat you with the pity your cerebral faculties deserve.

No no no I assure that I get what you are on about quite well indeed. But you'd have to be the sort of idiot you describe, would you not? to actually believe I don't understand you. One of your attributes is your insulting style and I think that if one insults it can and should be done with real Bergeracian panache; you are far too crude -- but this might be aesthetic taste after all.

In numerous ways I am also on your side (up to a certain point). A tremendous critique can be soundly launched against many many different manifestations of Christianity. But my view, opposed to yours, in that it is those Christians who need to reform themselves, and to better inform themselves, but not the core of the metaphysics that should be done away with. I do not have any problem at all with a resolute critical project against the defects of Christians. But it has to be carried out fairly. So all these topics need to be carefully brought out and talked through. It is quite extensive.

Some people are born with defects. They can be missing a sense, they can have an organ that doesn't work properly and they can have a deformity.

Could SEEING 'people' with so-called "defects" or "disability" be a DEFECT or DISABILITY, itself?

They are not born with bad attitudes. That is an acquired trait. But non-Christians can also have bad attitudes.

A critical project should not focus on Christians alone.

Some leaders have bad attitudes, and they should get the most attention because they can do the most damage.

Name an adult human being, in the days when this is being written, who does NOT have a so-called 'bad attitude'.

Could SEEING 'people' in regards to DEFECTS or DISABLE be a 'bad attitude' in and of itself?

[Age]

To be born from above means inwardly turning towards the light.

Not even close, Nick.

"Born from above" means "born of God." (1 John 5:1)

Just how BLIND they REALLY WERE, (back in those days), can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

All you're talking about "getting excited from within." That's quite a different proposition. It has nothing to do with the light, and nothing to do with losing one's "blindness."

[Age]

As you know, blindness in the Bible has a special meaning

I "know" this, do I?

And what is this "special meaning"?

I agree it means not merely physical disability, but rather something more.

And, what is this 'more', from your perspective "immanuel can", that the word 'blindness', in the bible, MEANS.

You ABILITY, or LACK there of here, to EXPLAIN what 'blindness' MEANS, in the bible, WILL REVEAL A LOT here.

But you'll have to tell me what you think I "know." I can't say what you're imagining.

[Age]

Being born from above is not an excited emotional state. It is a change in the quality of being made possible by the Spirit.

So far, so good, but...

John Had yet to be born again. He was the greatest born of woman but yet had not made the transition in being to being born again and beginning the path into conscious evolution

You've got the wrong "John."

You're speaking of "John the Baptist," and I was quoting "St. John the Evangelist." They're two different people, so your attempted connection with "greatest born of women" is a product of that mistake. That's J the B, not J the E. And "evolution," whether material, social or personal, is a concept unspoken of entirely in Scripture.

So there's no way that's the right interpretation of things.

But 'you', "immanuel can", have the UNDOUBTEDLY 'right interpretation' of things, correct?

It takes two wild errors to come up with something like that.

And you do NOT make A wild error, let alone two wild errors, correct "immanuel can"?

[Age]

So far, so good, but...

You've got the wrong "John."

You're speaking of "John the Baptist," and I was quoting "St. John the Evangelist." They're two different people, so your attempted connection with "greatest born of women" is a product of that mistake. That's J the B, not J the E. And "evolution," whether material, social or personal, is a concept unspoken of entirely in Scripture.

So there's no way that's the right interpretation of things. It takes two wild errors to come up with something like that.

The Bible quote refers to John the Baptist Why do you need to change it? From Matthew 11.

11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

I recognized the quotation immediately. How would I have known you'd mixed up your "Johns" if I didn't know the quotation in Matthew 11? Of course I knew it.

But it has nothing at all to do with the passage I quoted, which was from 1 John, which is John the Evangelist, not John the Baptist.

If you just STOPPED ADDING your OWN errors here "immanuel can", then you COULD SEE what "nick-a" has been POINTING OUT and SHOWING here.

[Lacewing]

...

Just not interested in responding to the path you are on. Your distortions and lack of understanding are too cumbersome to deal with. You seem to have no grasp of what can and does work outside of (and beyond) your way of seeing and thinking. Have fun with that.