Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

First, one would have to establish what Isaiah was actually referring to when he spoke of 'turning his own way'. It cannot function as a universal statement..

Actually, it can. That's the implication of "all".

And you can find the same doctrine powerfully reiterated in Romans 3. So it's a universal, alright.

...who has turned away from following or even respecting authority.

There it is again! The dumb claim I never made. Reductio ad absurdum.

Lovely.

...you believe that people in our culture, today, have turned away from church or religious authority

I never even mentioned "authority." That's projection again.

But your implication is also that some church, or established religious structures, are themselves *sound* and should be followed as legitimate authorities.

Do you include the Word of God as an "authority"? Otherwise, your claim's plain false. But if you do, then your claim is simply wrong.

It is Proverbs 14:12 that you meant to refer to.

Nope. You're wrong again.

There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that Nietzsche the man is highly problematic.

Follow madmen if you wish. Who am I to stop you?

He doesn't even try, because of his prior assumption that "God" is just a concept, not a reality.

God is most certainly a *concept* that is held in the mind of men.

Lots of people believe you're "certainly" wrong to think so. I would be one of them.

But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Proverbs 14:12

[Alexis Jacobi]

He doesn't even try, because of his prior assumption that "God" is just a concept, not a reality.

AJ: God is most certainly a *concept* that is held in the mind of men.

IC: Lots of people believe you're "certainly" wrong to think so. I would be one of them. But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to.

What is curious to me is that you stumble over the simple declaration that, even if a God exists and operates as you say God does (as an external entity outside of man), nevertheless when a given man visualizes God that visualization is through a *concept*. The idea of visualization and conceptualization is key to my ideas generally. We all carry around pictures that are interfaces between ourselves and *reality*.

The point is that we are conceptualizing beings.

When I Hindu invokes 'Krishna' in his mind, what is invoked is an 'image' of Krishna (pictured as a man surrounded with cows and Gopis, etc.) And a similar thing happens when a Christian visualizes Jesus Christ. This is what I mean when I say "God is most certainly a *concept* that is held in the mind of men". But you can only take this to mean that the 'concept' is unreal and that therefore God is unreal (or made up). But that is not at all what I mean.

The reason you do this, according to my perception and understandings of your methods, is because you operate through strict binaries. I know that to say this feels to you like an attack on your person but it is not. I am though definitely critiquing this sort of mind-frame.

Finally, it seems that your real argument is presented through this sort of statement which you often make when you have been, to some degree, cornered to use a popular turn of phrase. You say: "But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to".

These are very old hooks and manipulative apologetic strategies that, I think it fair to say, don't any longer have the persuasive power among those you say you wish to influence and convince. You only arouse ridicule and contempt when you revert to these tactics.

[iambiguous]

Let's focus in just on this part:

Oh, and PS -- Even Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A Going to watch that one?

Yeah, I watched it. And I was looking for two things:

1] demonstrable evidence that this God is the Christian God and not one of the other ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
2] the sort of proof that would [again] be on par with proof that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican

In that regard, you tell me.

Not to mention the fact that this "finely tuned Goldilocks effect" brought into existence here on planet Earth earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention as well the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

Let's not.

Of course "let's not". Why? Because you don't have a clue as to how to respond intelligently to the points I raise here.

Instead, you have to come up with a way of wiggling out of it. How about this: make it all about me!

I've seen how you treat every evidence you get. I'm no longer confident in your ability -- or perhaps your willingness -- to track a line of thought.

I shall let you be whatever it is you have determined to be.

Note to others:

Again, he throws this video out at me. Practically dares me to watch it. I do. I comment on it.

Now he has the chance to give us his own interpretation of it. A chance to comment on this:

1] demonstrable evidence that this God is the Christian God and not one of the other ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
2] the sort of proof that would [again] be on par with proof that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican

But he won't. It's back to being Mr. Wiggle, Wiggle, Wiggle.

Now, I'm not arguing that I can demonstrate that, objectively, he ought to be embarrassed in being reduced down to substance-less posts like the one above.

I'm merely speculating that it seems reasonable to me that he ought to be.

Or, sure, there are posters here who would like to argue that he has nothing at all to be embarrassed about.

A new thread perhaps?

[Nick_A]

Is God for you strictly a personal God outside of Man or do you see our source as within us and something we can awaken to?

Well, I have been influenced (likely obviously) by CG Jung's notion of the 'psyche'. I admit that Jung is a religious-minded man who dressed up his 'scientific' and empirical clinical psychological ideas so to appear 'respectable' but also intellectually tenable to Moderns. This is a topic all to itself.

But our own psyche -- our own self, our own perceptual instrument -- is all that we have to work with in the ultimate instance. So, the projection of God onto the 'outside' world tends to fail. Whatever god that made and rules that world is quite different from the god that is encountered on an inner plane. There is a contradiction here that is difficult to bridge.

You describe how you conceive a spiritual and religious path. And the terms you use are Christian -- Christian mysticism to be more precise. Your views and your own practice are non-conventional and are part of (say) hidden traditions that are associated with mystical schools of Christianity. And these involve work with the psyche (as does the work of, say, a monk or a renunciant). I regard this as entirely valid of course and as 'real' as anything else.

But I am defining what is 'real' differently. I regard as very real, hyper-real in fact, all the productions of man's psyche! These come to us, or flow though us, and affect the world in dramatic ways. If we do not see and understand our 'psyche' and what it does, we totally miss the point of our anthropology (theory of man). We are creatures of our psyches.

Clearly, we can (and should) awaken to our inner planes and to our self. Unfortunately, we face obstacles because exterior religion is under such assault. It produces a divided condition.

So we need to examine those who really are *faithless* (take Promethean and numerous others as an example who 'exemplify' our present condition) and see how their faithlessness (genuine and honest) in external structures and managed concepts, leads to a separation from something within their own selves. Take Iambiguous as a prime example. He says *I want to believe!* that what Christianity refers to is 'true' and 'real' but he cannot find the external evidence, and so abandons the entire pursuit. Taken to an extreme this results in all sorts of negative outcomes (this is my own view).

But this is the *condition* in which we find ourselves. It is very hard to bridge it.

Unfortunately, many people who experiment with inner work are out of balance and do themselves more harm than good. Consider Gurdjieff's explanation to Ouspensky on the balance between knowledge and being. From Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous:

"There are," he said, "two lines along which man's development proceeds, the line of
knowledge and the line of being. In right evolution the line of knowledge and the line
of being develop simultaneously, parallel to, and helping one another. But if the line of
knowledge gets too far ahead of the line of being, or if the line of being gets ahead of
the line of knowledge, man's development goes wrong, and sooner or later it must
come to a standstill.

"People understand what 'knowledge' means. And they understand the possibihty of
different levels of knowledge. They understand that knowledge may be lesser or
greater, that is to say, of one quality or of another quality. But they do not understand
this in relation to being.' 'Being,' for them, means simply 'existence' to which is
opposed just 'non-existence.' They do not understand that being or existence may be of
very different levels and categories. Take for instance the being of a mineral and of a
plant. It is a different being. The being of a plant and of an animal is again a different
being. The being of an animal and of a man is a different being. But the being of two
people can differ from one another more than the being of a mineral and of an animal.
This is exactly what people do not understand. And they do not understand that
knowledge depends on being. Not only do they not understand this latter but they
definitely do not wish to understand it. And especially in Western culture it is
considered that a man may possess great knowledge, for example he may be an able
scientist, make discoveries, advance science, and at the same time he may be, and has
the right to be, a petty, egoistic, caviling, mean, envious, vain, naive, and absent-
minded man. It seems to be considered here that a professor must always forget his
umbrella everywhere.

I'm not one who likes to fly around Saturn in imagination since I've verified that our species, out of balance must fall into imagination to justify ourselves. This was one of the reasons for starting the "Evolution of Religion" thread
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35010&e=1&view=unread#unread

Einstein appreciated the evolution of religion motivated by fear, morality, and finally potentially to conscience. Can human being evolve in its concepts of religion to match man's technological advances? Can the horizontal line of knowledge open to the vertical line of being so our species can become consciously human with understanding as opposed to a mechanical creature of reaction?

Unless I can come to grips with what a balanced human being is, it is foolish to indulge in imagination. It makes more sense to concern myself with why my conscious attention is so weak and so easily falls victim to imagination and escapism making it impossible to experience objective human meaning and purpose within a universal structure.

[Immanuel Can]

The idea of visualization and conceptualization is key to my ideas generally. We all carry around pictures that are interfaces between ourselves and *reality*.

Yep. But the pictures in your head neither make things real nor keep real things from being.\
...you operate through strict binaries....
Yawn.

Not interested.

You say: "But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to".

These are very old hooks and manipulative apologetic strategies...

This is just the truth. It has nothing to do with strategy.

But if you don't like the truth, why don't you "visualize and conceptualize" something you do like...and see if it comes true.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's not.

Of course "let's not". Why? Because you don't have a clue as to how to respond intelligently to the points I raise here.

You're so funny. Yes, you're so smart I have trouble dealing with your smartitute. That's the problem. You nailed it. Your points are too intelligent. Like you think the Pope's in Rome because people told you he was, and you assume he was. Yep, tough epistemic standard, that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Unfortunately, many people who experiment with inner work are out of balance and do themselves more harm than good.

If that is so then there is not a great deal of hope for people generally. This is one reason why I would never recommend that a person break with their church and religious traditions. For all their blemishes and warts remaining associated with them (again speaking generally) is often better than the alternatives.

Unless I can come to grips with what a balanced human being is, it is foolish to indulge in imagination. It makes more sense to concern myself with why my conscious attention is so weak and so easily falls victim to imagination and escapism making it impossible to experience objective human meaning and purpose within a universal structure.

I would suppose that many people, even perhaps ourselves, would be hard-pressed to define 'a balanced human being'. Maybe it was easier in those times when people were deeply ensconced in their smallish towns and communities and had many good examples to model themselves on?

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: You say: "But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to".

These are very old hooks and manipulative apologetic strategies...

This is just the truth. It has nothing to do with strategy.

But if you don't like the truth, why don't you "visualize and conceptualize" something you do like...and see if it comes true.

I recognize and accept that you cannot understand what I am talking about. Again it appears that fanaticism has you in its grip.

If you asked me to comment on the *afterworld* or worlds beyond or continuing life after this terrestrial life has ended, I do not think I could respond through conventional concepts. But the notions that dominate your assertions are, of course, derived from strict Biblical reading.

You have misunderstood once again! If I refer to visualization and conceptualization I am referring to what you (for example) visualize and conceptualize when you yourself imagine a world beyond this one (either a hell-realm or a heaven-realm since, it would appear, you cannot or do not conceive of a purification process like purgatory). When you do this you are entertaining a conceptual image in your mind and imagination.

It may be that what you *see* is real, but it may also be that it is a) incomplete, b) a distortion of what will be, and also c) simply wrong in other ways. Yet you have no alternative except to hold to the notion that you do have. To believe that it is *absolutely real*.

What I do, if anything, is to suspend the visualization. Even if I suppose there may be a continuation, on one plane or another, of my self, I do not think it is something that I can visualize.

In your visualized ideology however you actually (and sincerely) believe that I am many other you try to preach to and convince, because we do not or cannot accept your assertions, will wind up in a hell-realm (what you refer to as a state, I assume permanent of 'alienation' from God.)

Personally, and perhaps it could be said to be a different visualization (you mean a creative fantasy of course), I cannot logically, rationally and fairly conceive of an absolute and eternal hell-realm. We have covered this in the past! It would seem to me that if a God exists within the schema of strict and traditional Christianity, that instead of 'eternal punishment' he would simply cease the existence of those errant souls. They would be annulled. That is, soul who could not be reached or who had committed so many wrongs that they could not be forgiven, would simply be eliminated. What is the advantage of creating a place of permanent punishment with no possibility of redemption? It is a sick vengeance phantasy if looked at in a certain way.

So the sort of terrible God that you visualize (the one who would relegate a soul to perpetual punishment) is in my view a mistaken perception. It is likely that these visualizations (seeing reality in this way) is part of social and cultural functions, but not necessarily absolutely true. But this does not negate the possibility of after-existence.

So I do tend to believe in purgatorial realms in which a soul processes their life, what they did, what they didn't do, where they did right and where they did wrong, just as we all do this now: by being subject to our own conscience. By being forced to 'realize things' even when we do not want to. You know, the sort of thoughts (often remorseful) that show up at 3 AM when one cannot sleep or at other surpising moments when thoughts just enter one's consciousness and one goes back over events long past.

Similarly, I imagine that if consciousness goes on after this life ends there will be -- indeed there must be -- purgatorial-like experiences through which one burns off the dross (as it were).

But absolute and eternal condemnation?

Too Jewish . . . (reminding me of this scene in Blazing Saddles).

[Immanuel Can]

AJ: You say: "But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to".

These are very old hooks and manipulative apologetic strategies...

This is just the truth. It has nothing to do with strategy.

But if you don't like the truth, why don't you "visualize and conceptualize" something you do like...and see if it comes true.

I recognize and accept that you cannot understand what I am talking about. Again it appears that fanaticism has you in its grip.

You're starting to sound like Charlie Brown's parents in the old animated features...a noise with no identifiable meaning...just aimless ad hom, ad hom, ad hom, ad hom...

You have misunderstood once again!

Nope. I got it.

I just point out that no matter what you choose to "visualize," or what you happen to "conceptualize," reality always wins. You'll find that's true about the matter to which we were referring, for sure.

Personally, and perhaps it could be said to be a different visualization, I cannot logically, rationally and fairly conceive of an absolute and eternal hell-realm.

Personally, I cannot "conceptualize" Kiev. But if it exists, that will be of zero moment.

It would seem to me that if a God exists within the schema of strict and traditional Christianity, that instead of 'eternal punishment' he would simply cease the existence of those errant souls.

Yet you will find that the Bible says not.

Souls, it seems, are eternal things; one way, or the other.

So I do tend to believe in purgatorial realms in which a soul processes their life,

Catholicism. Purgatory is found absolutely nowhere in Scripture.

But Catholicism, being a works-religion, thinks that sort of makes sense. It was also a huge cash-cow for the Papacy, and continues to be. Very handy.

But absolute and eternal condemnation?

Yes. Choose now.

Too Jewish . . .

Antisemitism?

[Nick_A]

Unfortunately, many people who experiment with inner work are out of balance and do themselves more harm than good.

If that is so then there is not a great deal of hope for people generally. This is one reason why I would never recommend that a person break with their church and religious traditions. For all their blemishes and warts remaining associated with them (again speaking generally) is often better than the alternatives.

This is often true but a secular church is concerned with what its members DO; our personality. Inner work in contrast is directed at the inner man; what we ARE. That is why it is dangerous. A person can hurt themselves on the inside

Unless I can come to grips with what a balanced human being is, it is foolish to indulge in imagination. It makes more sense to concern myself with why my conscious attention is so weak and so easily falls victim to imagination and escapism making it impossible to experience objective human meaning and purpose within a universal structure.

I would suppose that many people, even perhaps ourselves, would be hard-pressed to define 'a balanced human being'. Maybe it was easier in those times when people were deeply ensconced in their smallish towns and communities and had many good examples to model themselves on?

Actually Plato described the balanced man as the tripartite soul working as one; inner unity. John 17 describes "one" raising the question of inner unity. If the soul is divided against itself, inner unity is impossible. A lot of what is called Christian in the world is directed at the outer man. The Christianity which interests me is directed at the inner man or the potential for inner unity

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,
21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
23
I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

[Dubious]

AJ: You say: "But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to".

These are very old hooks and manipulative apologetic strategies...

This is just the truth. It has nothing to do with strategy.

But if you don't like the truth, why don't you "visualize and conceptualize" something you do like...and see if it comes true.

I recognize and accept that you cannot understand what I am talking about. Again it appears that fanaticism has you in its grip.

When beliefs mutate into certainties in the process of forging one's identity, i.e., your innermost sense of self, any arguments against those beliefs becomes an attack upon the person, which is why those who succumb to that kind of disorder forever claim ad hominems when confronted. It becomes a case of identity infringement. So if one calls a spade a spade it becomes an affront to those who think otherwise engendering a severe reaction of cognitive dissonance.

On this site one can call it the ICan syndrome.

[Dontaskme]

AJ: You say: "But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to".

These are very old hooks and manipulative apologetic strategies...

This is just the truth. It has nothing to do with strategy.

But if you don't like the truth, why don't you "visualize and conceptualize" something you do like...and see if it comes true.

I recognize and accept that you cannot understand what I am talking about. Again it appears that fanaticism has you in its grip.

When beliefs mutate into certainties in the process of forging one's identity, i.e., your innermost sense of self, any arguments against those beliefs becomes an attack upon the person, which is why those who succumb to that kind of disorder forever claim ad hominems when confronted. It becomes a case of identity infringement. So if one calls a spade a spade it becomes an affront to those who think otherwise engendering a severe reaction of cognitive dissonance.

On this site one can call it the ICan syndrome.

Also worth pointing out is the obvious frustration IC feels when he fails to connect to others who do not see the world as he does. The isolation feeds an intense and fierce need to defend his own certainty by resorting to a passive aggressive ranty counter-attack by completely admonishing other people's ideas who he doesn't feel are on the same level of logic or intelligence as his own.

.

[Dontaskme]

God is most certainly a *concept* that is held in the mind of men.

Lots of people believe you're "certainly" wrong to think so. I would be one of them.

But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to.

Imagine how most all of history is dependent on whose perspective it's told from.

[Belinda]

AJ: You say: "But you and I will find out who's right. I'm content to wait. However, I don't think you can afford to".

These are very old hooks and manipulative apologetic strategies...

This is just the truth. It has nothing to do with strategy.

But if you don't like the truth, why don't you "visualize and conceptualize" something you do like...and see if it comes true.

I recognize and accept that you cannot understand what I am talking about. Again it appears that fanaticism has you in its grip.

When beliefs mutate into certainties in the process of forging one's identity, i.e., your innermost sense of self, any arguments against those beliefs becomes an attack upon the person, which is why those who succumb to that kind of disorder forever claim ad hominems when confronted. It becomes a case of identity infringement. So if one calls a spade a spade it becomes an affront to those who think otherwise engendering a severe reaction of cognitive dissonance.

On this site one can call it the ICan syndrome.

One can call it the ICan syndrome, but others call it idolatry when beliefs mutate into certainties.