Christianity

[promethean75]

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."

see this one is unfair because the dude who wrote that lived in a place and time when folks lived in clay huts and drove donkeys. it's not all that difficult to avoid coveting stuff like that. but when you live in 2022 and your neighbor has a brand new Corvette in the driveway of a yuge house, you're going to covet.

[seeds]

What kind of alternate possibilities do you suggest for the murderer, the raper, the slaver?

The simplest is complete dissolution and annihilation of their being, but even that might not be the kindest choice for a wholly loving, omnipotent God. If you want others, I can provide them.

Why do stealers of life and liberty deserve any more than hell (fiery place or eternal separation from God)? And even these motherfuckers can keep their sorry asses out of the pit if they truly repent.

I privately defended you against those who object to your "Steal my lawn chair after I've warned you of the consequences and I'll shoot you" affirmation. I mean, it's a bit extreme to shoot the thief, but it's not hard, when warned, to just back off and move on. Anybody who is foolish enough not to heed your warning in that situation doesn't exactly "deserve" to be shot, but they sure had ample opportunity to avoid it.

But this: this is taking it to a whole other level. You're saying that anybody who commits certain finite crimes deserves pretty much the worst possible consequence: unimaginable suffering for eternity. There's really no word for that: it goes so far beyond justice and even vengeance. It even goes beyond sadism.

Right you are, Harry.

If Hell is real, then not only does it go beyond sadistic madness, but it also validates the utterly ridiculous logic that all humans should die as infants or toddlers so as to prevent them from doing anything later in life that might warrant sending them there.

However, according to some "Christians," even if you died a day after you were born, it still might not save you from the fires of Hell. And that's because you didn't accept Jesus as your personal savior before dying in order to cleanse your soul of your inherited guilt from Adam and Eve's "Original Sin."

And the irony is that even if the more reasonable Christians assure us that children who die before reaching the age of accountability will not go to Hell, then there you have it, they have just validated the logic of why all humans should die in infancy in order to avoid any possibility of being tortured for eternity.
_______

[Nick_A]

When trying to figure out what this man made personal "Christian God" is, I became convinced it must be a democrat. What other being can be so foolish and manifest such hypocrisy?

ONLY the human being.

However, the Thing, which the God word once referred to, is NOT hypocritical, NOR contradictory, AT ALL.

Quite true. Did Man create God or did God create man? Most secularists believe man creates God. You believe that God creates man. I agree. But to make any sense out of it we must pursue deductive reason rather than inductive reason used by science. Deductive reason must begin with the question "what is God?" and work its way down to individual phenomenon and see if it makes logical sense proving an intellectual belief in the source of man and the universe.

[Belinda]

When trying to figure out what this man made personal "Christian God" is, I became convinced it must be a democrat. What other being can be so foolish and manifest such hypocrisy?

ONLY the human being.

However, the Thing, which the God word once referred to, is NOT hypocritical, NOR contradictory, AT ALL.

Quite true. Did Man create God or did God create man? Most secularists believe man creates God. You believe that God creates man. I agree. But to make any sense out of it we must pursue deductive reason rather than inductive reason used by science. Deductive reason must begin with the question "what is God?" and work its way down to individual phenomenon and see if it makes logical sense proving an intellectual belief in the source of man and the universe.

Good luck with that Nick! Spinoza did it and very few bother to follow Spinoza's deductive reasoning.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well! All has been fulfilled!

I am now cruising at 24 thousand glorious feet in my new Leerjet 60! Thank you all who have contributed so generously! My 'executive team' is with me, all 10 of them: accomplished over-healthy young women who have declared (I have notarized documents supported by video recorded declarations) that they are 18+ years old.

My God-ordained World Mission begins!



As we go forward I hope that you will consider this diagram of The Hero's Journey and a concept-outline of Story Arc. It is easy to understand this type of Story Arc when considering Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz.

It begins (in B&W) with dreary farm-life in Kansas. A threat manifests. The machinations of Elvira against poor Toto. There is a Storm on the horizon. There is a wonderful visionary interlude when she sings Over the Rainbow. From whence these lofty, even celestial dreams?

The adventure begins when Dorothy determines to run away to escape a Determined Adversary. The Call to Adventure is thwarted, however, and she is dissuaded from it by sentimentalism and emotionalism: poor Aunt Em as seen in the Huckster's crystal ball. She refuses the call and that is a traditional elements in the Hero's Journey.

The Tornado is Fate which, despite here desires and decisions, but also being linked to her expressions of Lofty Vision (the song she sings, what is closest to her heart), becomes a decision that she cannot control or turn away from. Landing in a Magical World she meets her primary Mentor: Glenda, the Good Witch of the North. Guardian Angel, spirit guide, celestial protector, she is even given something that corresponds to an amulet, a 'power-object'.



To *get back home* involves venturing forth, and along the way there are Tests, Oppositions, Confrontations, Enemies, but also meetings with those who, like her, suffer from 'lacks' of qualities that are essential to living life fully. They are all in the same boat, unified by extraordinary love and solidarity. As each proceeds, they each confront their own 'debilitating defect' through encounters with challenges and temptations.

Generally, the Story Arc of the Journey is a series of apparent gains and successes which fail until finally one encounters complete existential defeat in the Abyss of Death & Despair. All is lost. The Journey was in vain. The easy hope for an easy route home is thwarted by the Wizard assigning a mission: she must capture the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the East.

The final defeat is presented as 'dismemberment' on various levels. The plan falls apart. All hope is lost. The mission fails. The oppositional powers, the Force of Darkness, wins and exults.

That is the bottom point in the arc. Then, transformation occurs. The will of the Good achieves its object. And the effort radiates as Liberating Energy. The reward from this type of undertaking (adventure, mission) is Healing Power. There had to have been a Wound (an error, a defect, an obstacle, a curse, an Evil Lord, oppression, misery and the like) in order for there to be a Hero's Journey of scale.

Consider here Jesus of Nazareth upon his death and then in the Tomb. Yet heralding that darkest of dark points were the terrestrial and atmospheric signs and omens -- yet who could decipher them there and then at the deepest point of death?

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

We are dying, we are dying, we are all of us dying
and nothing will stay the death-flood rising within us
and soon it will rise on the world, on the outside world.

[Age]

When trying to figure out what this man made personal "Christian God" is, I became convinced it must be a democrat. What other being can be so foolish and manifest such hypocrisy?

ONLY the human being.

However, the Thing, which the God word once referred to, is NOT hypocritical, NOR contradictory, AT ALL.

Quite true. Did Man create God or did God create man?

Are you here referring to the word 'God', or to what the word 'God' refers to, EXACTLY?

Most secularists believe man creates God.

Considering what the word "secularists" means or refers to, then this is quite reasonable.

You believe that God creates man. I agree. But to make any sense out of it we must pursue deductive reason rather than inductive reason used by science.

I just worked out what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which the 'God' word was, once, referring to, then the rest all just 'fell into place', and made 'perfect sense', at the same time.

Deductive reason must begin with the question "what is God?"

Once that is uncovered and/or worked out, then the rest was REALLY ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

and work its way down to individual phenomenon and see if it makes logical sense proving an intellectual belief in the source of man and the universe.

WHY did you use the 'an intellectual belief in' words here?

That just ruined what would have been a Truly logical and sensible sentence, besides, of cause, the use of the 'man' word, if what you REALLY meant was the 'human' word.

[henry quirk]

Harry,

You're saying that anybody who commits certain finite crimes deserves pretty much the worst possible consequence: unimaginable suffering for eternity.

If you murder (unjustly kill) you irrevocably steal, end, a life. Might be finite to you, but for the one murdered it's literally the loss of everything, of himself.

Tell me, what punishment is appropriate for that?

You say the Christian God is loving as though this were His only or chief attribute. He's a person: loving, yes; infinitely forgiving, yes; patient, yes; he, however, is not a chump. He gives you, murderin' you, all the time in the world (your lifetime) to step up, admit you're a murderer, and ask forgiveness. You do that and your murderin', rapin', slavin', drops away. You're clean as when you came into the world shiny & new. And if you won't fess up? Fiery Perdition or Eternal Separation: you chose it.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me (a damn sight better than you'd get from me if you murdered, raped, or slaved someone I love...I wouldn't forgive).

[Nick_A]

ONLY the human being.

However, the Thing, which the God word once referred to, is NOT hypocritical, NOR contradictory, AT ALL.

Quite true. Did Man create God or did God create man?

Are you here referring to the word 'God', or to what the word 'God' refers to, EXACTLY?

Most secularists believe man creates God.

Considering what the word "secularists" means or refers to, then this is quite reasonable.

You believe that God creates man. I agree. But to make any sense out of it we must pursue deductive reason rather than inductive reason used by science.

I just worked out what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which the 'God' word was, once, referring to, then the rest all just 'fell into place', and made 'perfect sense', at the same time.

Deductive reason must begin with the question "what is God?"

Once that is uncovered and/or worked out, then the rest was REALLY ALL VERY SIMPLE and EASY.

and work its way down to individual phenomenon and see if it makes logical sense proving an intellectual belief in the source of man and the universe.

WHY did you use the 'an intellectual belief in' words here?

That just ruined what would have been a Truly logical and sensible sentence, besides, of cause, the use of the 'man' word, if what you REALLY meant was the 'human' word.

I use the term man as referring to man on earth. Human can refer to man either before or after the fall.

The modern world is not content with blind belief and seeks verification. The true seeker of wisdom invites the experience of higher reason or intuition to be verified by lower reason or inductive reason. The truth is the truth. John Uebersax explains. Can we agree that higher reason or why we experience the ineffable or the truths beyond what our senses experience is real? If it can, it reveals the value of the intellect or the freedom from fantasy.

The word 'reason' as used today is used ambiguous in its meaning. It may denote either of two mental faculties: a lower reason associated with discursive, linear thinking, and a higher reason associated with direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths. These two faculties may be provisionally named Reason (higher reason) and rationality (lower reason). Common language and personal experience supply evidence of these being distinct faculties. So does classical philosophical literature, the locus classicus being Plato's Divided Line analogy. The effect of currently using a single word to denote both faculties not only produces confusion, but has had the effect of decreasing personal and cultural awareness of the higher faculty, Reason. Loss of a sense of Reason has arguably contributed to various psychological, social, moral, and spiritual problems of the modern age. This issue was also a central concern of 19th century Transcendentalists, who reacted to the radical empiricism of Locke. It would be advantageous to adopt consistent terms that make explicit a distinction between higher and lower reason. One possibility is to re-introduce the Greek philosophical terms nous and dianoia for the higher and lower reason, respectively. This discussion has certain parallels with the recent theories of McGilchrist (2009) concerning the increasingly left-brain hemisphere orientation of human culture.

Christian reason as opposed, to Christendom or man made Christianity, strives to experience "direct apprehension of first principles of mathematics and logic, and possibly also of moral and religious truths."
It is top down reason as opposed to bottom up inductive reason normal for animal reason. Yet those who can experience life as an organic whole serving a universal purpose of which the conscious evolution of man has a part, are becoming less and less. The majority serve pragmatic desires and lower reason promoted by enchantment with the results of technology.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you murder (unjustly kill) you irrevocably steal, end, a life. Might be finite to you, but for the one murdered it's literally the loss of everything, of himself. Tell me, what punishment is appropriate for that?

On one hand you seen to be presenting an argument within the standard Christian metaphysic. That is, that the establishment of an Eternal Hell is a just reward for (in this instance) the cruel stealing a life.

But within the Christian scheme, the Christian worldpicture, the soul is eternal. If a murder ends the terrestrial life, that is just one phase of life. The 'just man' who is murdered gains an eternal afterworld.

In order for that 'loss of himself' to be as fully consequential as you present it, there would have to be no possibility of *heavenly reward'. There would have to be no *life beyond* terrestrial life.

You are situating your argument within the standard Christian story and making an effort to explain, logically and justly, the existence of an eternal hell for those who commit serious sinful acts. Yet it seems that you have not, yourself, actually accepted the full Christian picture.

The just man, murdered, is given an eternal reward. So his *loss of himself* is not as profoundly consequential as you seem to believe.

The entire Earth, this natural system, is a mill of life & death, birth, existence & also of 'murder': taking a life which, as you say, means *the loss of everything: himself* for the creature that finds himself in the belly of another animal and being assimilated into the body of the being that consumed him.

I cannot see any way around this essential condition. My point is not to explain or justify murder, but rather to point to the essence of what I sense as your moral indignation.

My own idea is that Christianity (and other religions as well) is a religious philosophy of deeply set ressentiment against life itself! Against the way that life is.

That creature (us) who rises up out of the slime and gains the conscious awareness of the brutal and terrifying nature of things desires, as a result, to counter-propose to that horror which is not resolvable. The nature of the world will not ever change. It will go on as it is for all eternity.

[Dubious]

There were many who lived far greater than the poor bloke who preached in the back alleys of Palestine.

Name one.

Everyone who actually accomplished something.

[Immanuel Can]

There were many who lived far greater than the poor bloke who preached in the back alleys of Palestine.

Name one.

Everyone who actually accomplished something.

No...name one.

[Immanuel Can]

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."

see this one is unfair because the dude who wrote that lived in a place and time when folks lived in clay huts and drove donkeys. it's not all that difficult to avoid coveting stuff like that. but when you live in 2022 and your neighbor has a brand new Corvette in the driveway of a yuge house, you're going to covet.

Somebody I know, poor as a young man but rich later, was lamenting the difficulties of meeting his mortgage.

I couldn't help myself, and had to ask him, "Look, your house is worth six times what mine is worth, at least. And they sum you're looking for is more than I will probably make in a lifetime. How is it that you can be worried about money?"

He said, "It's simple: it's all scale. You're used to living at your level, and I'm moving at mine. But the issues are the same."

So let it be clay huts or condos or Corvettes, the answer is exactly the same: "You shall not covet."

[Dubious]

Dubious wrote:

There were many who lived far greater than the poor bloke who preached in the back alleys of Palestine.

All poor blokes are Christ. Poor blokes describes all of us here who are feeling pain, terror, joy, anxiety, pride, frustration, loss, greed, resentment, hate, abandonment, hunger , and thirst etc. The human condition involves being a poor bloke who must cope with his life whatever and wherever he finds himself, on the back alleys of Palestine, in a luxurious palace, in a battle, in a prison, and so on . Many people have taken the life and work of Jesus to be their pattern of how to cope with whatever their lives throw at them. Others take a sacred book to be their pattern. Others take ancestral traditions for their pattern.

The meaning of the myth of Christ is that God as ground of being (pancreator)did cause the human condition with all its suffering. And God as pancreator also caused joy, reason,and man's ability to learn from significant others i.e ,for Christians , the person of Jesus.

This generalizes too much. There are blokes who are on top of the food chain and those on the bottom; there are also the mucho millions who have nothing to live for including the children they produce. The feeling of "pain, terror, joy, anxiety, pride, frustration, loss, greed, resentment, hate, abandonment, hunger , and thirst etc, are much less active on the top and far more rampant on the bottom, so no, it doesn't describe all of us!

People default to what consoles them; in the West it's common for Christians to take Jesus as their refuge without further thought since it's unlikely they would accept Hinduism or Islam for that purpose just as the latter two would not accept Jesus as consolation in their lives.

Also, one can't learn anything from Jesus which Jesus himself didn't learn from others which he simply repeated being the good evangelist he was. The "myth" of Jesus is a Jesus which never existed and would never have gotten off the ground if it weren't for Paul without whom, Jesus would have remained a complete nonentity having accomplished nothing.

[Dubious]

Name one.

Everyone who actually accomplished something.

No...name one.

I'm sure you can find one yourself among all the people who left humans a worthwhile legacy, greater or lesser, in whatever form it's in; you know, all those who didn't require others to do it for them.

[Harry Baird]

Is it loving to condemn a person to an eternity of a hell which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

Yes/no answer preferred.

Well, would [...]

That's not an answer. Like henry, you dodge the question. Please answer directly.