Christianity

[seeds]

_______



_______

[seeds]

No one has spoken, on any level, of an alternative or perhaps a more original, a truer, a more believable metaphysics that would amend or replace the distorted Judeo-Christian social and political mythology.

Pretty much all I have ever done on this and other philosophy forums over the past 14 years is speak of what I personally believe is a truer and more believable metaphysics that attempts to amend and replace, not only Judeo-Christian mythology, but the mythology of all of the world's religions (including materialism).

However, the first thing that one needs to realize about all of the diverse religions of the world (again, including materialism) is that they each (for the most part) contain "nuggets" of truth (some more than others) that need to be mined and viewed as "puzzle pieces" that, when assembled, help to reveal what is known in Hermetic philosophy as the "prisca theologia".

According to Wiki:

Prisca theologia ("ancient theology") is the doctrine that asserts that a single, true theology exists which threads through all religions, and which was anciently given by God to humans.

I, of course, could be wrong, but I believe that the core of Christian metaphysics, which asserts that a human,...

(or more accurately, the human mind/soul)

...is "created in the image" of God's mind/soul,...

...comes closest to revealing the truth of reality.

Indeed, I've even been crazy enough to create dozens of illustrations to drive that point home, of which I suggest that if you study and understand the eternal implications of just the following two illustrations alone, you will understand what I propose is the secret of the universe...

As well, no one even seems interested in discussing and analyzing contemporary events in the light of the break-down in the possibility of metaphysical agreements.

Perhaps you haven't yet spoken with the right person about such issues.

So, what "contemporary events" are you talking about? And how are they breaking-down the possibility of metaphysical agreements?

Do we conceive of a non-metaphysical world? Is that the meaning of the deconstruction of the Christian Story? Is all of Christianity a false-metaphysics?

Absolutely not.

Again, we must mine the "Christian Story" for its valuable nuggets and leave the useless "tailings" (mythological nonsense) behind.

C'mon you shards & fragments, you sons & daughters of civilization's salvific Moloch!

Surely there must be more?

If you can't imagine the incredible degree of "more" implied in the two illustrations above, then keep studying them until (hopefully) it dawns on you.

Again, I admit that I could be wrong, but I propose that there literally cannot be "more" to our ultimate and eternal destiny than what the illustrations suggest.
_______

[Nick_A]

No, it isn't a matter of chucking away the Bible but rather becoming capable of reading the Bible and appreciating Jesus' mission. But thinking in this way is the unforgiveable question. Imagine telling a room full of educated people being told they know nothing in relation to Man's purpose for being here is dangerous.

My thoughts in relation to this are as follow:

It requires a certain person, with a certain frame of mind and a certain type of understanding to look at the Bible as a totality and extract out of it an existential platform, a way of living, a means of being in communication with *god*, and also a liturgy that a man or a group could live in accord with. There has to be an interpreting agent. But then the question becomes Who will undertake and fulfill this interpretive effort?

The spirituality or religiousness that you recommend and represent could only be received by a singular man, or perhaps by a small community of persons. You have allowed yourself to be influenced by philosophers who are actually outside of the Christian system and you can incorporate their perspectives as a sort of retrofitting. George Gurdjieff, Frithjof Schuon, and Simone Weil are examples of people who are engaged in projects of reinterpretation and even re-formatting. If you go that route then, in fact, the door can be opened to a complete revision and re-description of both Judaism and Christianity.

I do not have an argument against doing this necessarily but it would certainly result in just one more fracture (schism) within Christianity.

It can also be seen as an attempt to apply a band-aid to a metaphysical system that is actually falling to pieces. The reason it falls to pieces can be understood by examining this thread and this conversation. Though what you recommend as a spiritual process makes sense to me it could not be said that your interpretation would be accepted by those outside of a small circle.

However, the fact of the issue remains that the religion of Yahweh, taken as a whole, is entirely complicated and indeed polluted by controversy if only in the sense that a thousand people examining it extract out of it those elements that accord with their sensibilities while down-playing those elements that do not, and a thousand interpretations result.

There is simply no branch of Christianity today that is not beset with controversy and is not struggling to hold itself together against a general fragmentation.

The Bible was written for the distinct purpose of bypassing the literal mind and touching the inner man. That is why it annoys the secular mind limited to the literal mind.

What you say here seems a *romantic* interpretation. It is as if you are saying that with a certain interpretive key, which you have access to, all the contradictions can be resolved. And this must have to do with *bypassing the literal mind* and somehow touching or inspiring 'the inner man'.

But the Bible (certainly those books that comprise the Old Testament) were written for a range of social and political purposes, and the function of the tribal religion was, according the Yahweh, to annihilate opposition to the Hebrew tribal project. It is possible though to say that the advent of Jesus of Nazareth, and the spiritual and religious movements that came before him, represented a very different departure-point. But at that point, in fact, god is defined extremely differently. At that point god is really defined as a universal entity. Yet it is still an extension of Yahweh and it is still immersed in the original context with all its conflicts and contradictions.

Christianity has the purpose with the help of the Spirit of making a silk purse out of a sows ear. The sows ear represents man's life in Plato's cave. yet it has the potential to become a silk purse or consciously evolved humanity.

This is immensely interpretive! It is rather Alexandrian really (Neoplatonic essentially):

[Wiki}: Alexandrian school is also used to describe the religious and philosophical developments in Alexandria after the 1st century. The mix of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy led to a syncretic mix and much mystical speculation. The Neoplatonists devoted themselves to examining the nature of the soul, and sought communion with God. The two great schools of biblical interpretation in the early Christian church incorporated Neoplatonism and philosophical beliefs from Plato's teachings into Christianity, and interpreted much of the Bible allegorically. The founders of the Alexandrian school of Christian theology were Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Nick continues:

The basic reason everything remains as it is is because we don't believe we live in Plato's cave or the exoteric level of reality. Yet there are those who sense their position with the inner need TO BE.

You are proposing very personal perspectives that would result in very personal choices.

But European Christianity developed as a cultural and civilizational foundation.

Hi AJ

First of all we appreciate Christianity differently. What you call Christianity, I call Christendom or man made interpretations of Christianity originating with a conscious transcendent source beyond the limits of the earth. So obviously there must be many forms of Christendom at the exoteric level of being but only one Christianity at the transcendent level.

Where efforts at Christendom serve as a policeman telling people what to do through guilt and duty, Christianity teaches efforts how TO BE, so as to be able to UNDERSTAND.

Those like Gurdjieff and Simone Weil knew that advances in science would contradict certain beliefs of Christendom causing a loss of the need for meaning in the world and the devolution of human being. Where Simone was an individual thinker, Gurdjieff was connected to efforts towards awakening. Either way both as well as others knew the importance of understanding the complimentary relationship of science and the essence of religion. Where Einstein wrote “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” how many understand the depth and importance of the remark? Yet those who do wll be hated by the secular world

Simone Weil wrote:

"I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

Read here how Maurice Nicoll describes the dangers of higher reason being interpreted by lower reason. This is the end of part one in the book "The New Man." http://yahadblogs.org/HNR/Documents/Mau ... ew-Man.pdf

The object of all sacred writings is to convey higher meaning and higher knowledge in terms of
ordinary knowledge as a starting−point. The parables have an ordinary meaning. The object of the
parables is to give a man higher meaning in terms of lower meaning in such a way that he can
either think for himself or not. The parable is an instrument devised for this purpose. It can fall on
a man literally, or it can make him think for himself. It invites him to think for himself. A man
first understands on his ordinary, matter−of−fact or natural level. To lift the understanding,
whatever is taught must first fall on this level to some extent, to form a starting−point. A man
must get hold, of what he is taught, to begin with, in a natural way. But the parable has meaning
beyond its literal or natural sense. It is deliberately designed to fall first on the ordinary level of
the mind and yet to work in the mind in the direction of lifting the natural level of comprehension
to another level of meaning. From this point of view, a parable is a transforming instrument in
regard to meaning. As we shall see later the parable is also a connecting medium between a lower
and a higher level in development of the understanding.

PART TWO

THE Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re−birth". This is their central
idea. Let us begin by taking inner evolution as meaning a development of the understanding. The
Gospels teach that a man living on this earth is capable of undergoing a definite inner evolution if
he comes in contact with definite teaching on this subject. For that reason, Christ said: "I am the
way, and the truth, and the life. " (John xiv, 6). This inner evolution is psychological. To become a
more understanding person is a psychological development. It lies in the realm of the thoughts, the
feelings, the actions, and, in short, the understanding. A man is his understanding. If you wish to see what a man is, and not what he
is like, look at the level of his understanding. The Gospels speak, then, of a real psychology based
on the teaching that Man on earth is capable of a definite inner evolution in understanding................................

Striving towards the transcendent good of Christianity is only for a minority. The majority are content with Christendom or an interpretation they grew up with and either defend or oppose. Either way, to sense the futility of the exoteric path and entering the esoteric path requires a need for truth at the expense of the pleasures of mixing in. They are rare.

Gurdjieff's 29 aphorism: "Blessed is he who has a soul, blessed is he who has none, but woe and grief to him who has it in embryo."


This used to frighten me at first until I finally realized the good sense of it. Is it Christian? Yes but not the beliefs of Christendom which only believes in the ready made soul ignoring the potential for a soul which can unify our higher and lower natures from a higher perspective.

[iambiguous]

Bermudians to the Christian God: You spared us!
Nova Scotians to the Christian God: What the hell?!

[Age]

But trying to POINT OUT 'contradictions' while a person is having or holding A BELIEF is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

The way I see it, in the heat of the moment, in a fierce fight, a contradiction will very often be vigorously denied, but, when the dust settles, the contradiction very often niggles in the back of the mind, and can lead to a gradual acceptance.

This is very true, and what is also very true is WHILE one is HOLDING onto a BELIEF they will inevitably REFUSE to accept absolutely ANY thing, which opposes THEIR BELIEF.

People do change their beliefs based on arguments, even if that change comes slowly, because it has to be processed and many of one's other related beliefs reconsidered and potentially revised during that processing.

Again, very true. But, this CHANGE can, and will, only happen when the first BELIEF is relinquished. But WHILE a BELIEF is being maintained and HELD ONTO I have found that there is absolutely NOTHING that can or would transcend, not even ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth I have found can get through or past A BELIEF. Only when the BELIEF is let go of or gotten rid of, then, and ONLY THEN, can CHANGE occur. This process, by the way, can happen VERY SLOWLY or just about INSTANTLY.

SEE, I would have as the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of trouble/issue trying to POINT OUT the 'contradiction' in your fundamental beliefs as I WOULD HAVE in POINTING OUT the EXACT SAME 'contradictions', to "immanuel can", which you are trying to POINT OUT to "immanuel can".

Well, please undertake that trouble/issue, because if you're going to accuse me of a contradiction in my fundamental beliefs, then I want to know specifically what you think it is.

Okay. One WANTING to KNOW what contradictions, or what is False, Wrong, or Incorrect, in their OWN BELIEFS is a very NECESSARY and tremendous HELP in CHANGING, and thus in also LEARNING MORE and ANEW.

But for me to POINT OUT and SHOW the contradictions and/or inconsistencies in YOUR BELIEFS, then I FIRST NEED to KNOW what YOUR BELIEFS are EXACTLY. For this to happen PROPERLY I NEED you to INFORM me of what YOUR BELIEFS are EXACTLY because I do not like to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing, and I especially never want to do in regards to your very OWN BELIEFS.

Now, if you would like me to start this, then I would just ask, for CLARITY, do you BELIEVE any talk of 'eternal damnation, or torture' within the bible is meaning, or in reference to, an individual person?

Or, if you prefer to start somewhere else, then we can go there and do that also.

[T]he VERY NATURE of BELIEFS, themselves [is that t]hey, literally, BLIND and DEAFENING one to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Sure, often enough, that's true, but, in general, beliefs are just a type of epistemic conviction on a scale from "speculation" to "incontrovertible knowledge", and there's nothing special about them in the way of blinding or deafening as opposed to any other type of epistemic conviction.

Why would you and why do you BELIEVE some 'thing' is true, or false, if it COULD BE some 'thing' ELSE?

Why not just THINK 'it' or just VIEW 'it' that way INSTEAD?

Why have or HOLD a BELIEF, when 'it' COULD BE Wrong ANYWAY?

Epistemic convictions of some type are, in any case, essential for decision-making, even if they are only provisional, so it is impossible in practice to live without something along the lines of belief.

HERE we have ANOTHER one who BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that 'we', human beings, can NOT live WITHOUT BELIEFS, correct?

If you would like to USE this EXAMPLE as one of YOUR, FUNDAMENTAL, BELIEFS, AND you would REALLY like me to POINT OUT and SHOW the 'contradictions' WITHIN IT, then GREAT. This would be a GREAT BELIEF to BEGIN ON, and WITH.

So, IF this is one of your fundamental BELIEFS, then I am going to ACCUSE you of having a CONTRADICTION in this fundamental BELIEF of YOURS.

My biggest goal here, in this forum, is to LEARN HOW to get people to just OPEN UP, REMAIN OPEN, and SEE 'things' for HOW they REALLY ARE.

Is the belief on which you base that that you do see things for how they really are?

I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS, AT ALL, (except one). So, I have NO BELIEF in regards to what you are asking here.

Just so it is VERY, VERY CLEAR, and FULLY UNDERSTOOD, for the sake of ANY and ALL DISCUSSION throughout with you in this thread I NEITHER BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE absolutely ANY thing, okay?

If so, doesn't that make you, too, subject to your own critique of belief (that you are also blinded and deafened by it)?

MOOT.

I NEITHER BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE absolutely ANY thing.

In any case, why don't you just, simply and directly, explain how you think things really are?

BECAUSE, and as I JUST EXPLAINED, PREVIOUS, WHILE one is HAVING, HOLDING, and/or MAINTAINING A BELIEF in some 'thing', they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing OPPOSING that BELIEF.

AGAIN, and as I have ALREADY EXPLAINED, even the ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' can NOT even be used to SUCCESSFUL SHOW, POINT OUT, nor PROVE that a person's STRONGLY HELD ONTO BELIEF is False, Wrong, nor Incorrect, that is; IF it IS.

Probably, some will get it, and some won't, but why pussyfoot around trying to get people to "open up"? Just say your piece and be prepared to defend it.

BECAUSE I have FOUND that doing so is a complete and utter WASTE OF TIME, WHILE BELIEFS are being HELD ONTO and MAINTAINED.

Surely YOUR OWN DISCUSSION here with "immanuel can" is LIVING PROOF of this Fact.

BOTH of you are NOT YET OPEN to what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, BECAUSE, BOTH of you are so-called "pussyfooting around" just 'trying to' FIGHT FOR what you BOTH BELIEVE is the truth.

I think "immanuel can" is just MORE AFRAID or SCARED to ACCEPT the challenge, then "immanuel can" is DETERMINED to just IGNORE IT.

I think "immanuel can" just feels THREATENED by 'your' version, or twist, on the 'eternal damnation' 'thing', and has just NOT YET COME to working out HOW to get AROUND this YET.

I think that that's a fair and plausible suggestion, compatible with that which I wrote above about the slow acceptance of a niggle in the back of one's mind after vigorously denying its reality during a fierce fight.

There is STILL nothing in there, to me anyway, that pertains to a person being ABLE to EXIST, or be ALIVE, FOREVER AND be TORTURED in ANY way.

The quotes speak for themselves. Your belief that such a thing is impossible is not relevant to them.

LOL

Firstly, I have NO BELIEF.

Secondly, I do NOT even think such a thing is IMPOSSIBLE.

IN the words that I ACTUALLY WROTE and SPOKE it can be CLEARLY SEEN that there is STILL NOTHING in there, TO ME ANYWAY, that is related to a person being ABLE TO LIVE FOREVER, while being tortured FOREVER MORE.

If you or "others" SEE that this is what is MEANT by those words, then so be it. I just do NOT SEE that INTERPRETATION, AT ALL.

They clearly indicate that (according to the Bible) it does occur.

BACK TO THE BEGINNING, Could it be YOUR INTERPRETATION that is Wrong here?

Or, do you BELIEVE that YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION of those words in the bible could NEVER be Wrong in ANY WAY POSSIBLE?

Sure, their authors don't take the time to explain how it is possible, but I'm not sure why they should, because there is no prima facie reason to believe it is not possible.

LOL 'what' does the 'it' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

IF the 'it' word is referring to an individual person being tortured FOREVER MORE, then the 'prima facie' REASON to NOT even BEGIN to BELIEVE that it is NOT POSSIBLE is to BASE one's conclusion on what is ACTUALLY True AND REAL. And, what is ACTUALLY True AND REAL is the Fact that people are NOT conscious forever more, to even be ABLE to fell NOR experience torture.

What ALL of those words that you have 'copied' from the bible MEANING and REFER TO some thing ELSE completely DIFFERENT. BUT, WHILE you are BELIEVING otherwise and HOLDING ONTO and MAINTAINING that BELIEF, you are NOT OPEN TO, and thus NOT ABLE TO SEE nor HEAR what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

And, as ALREADY POINTED OUT and EXPLAINED I am NOT going to WASTE my 'time' doing so HERE.

I, however, CAN and WILL SHOW and REVEAL what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, to absolutely ANY one who is Truly INTERESTED in LEARNING and/or KNOWING. And, for those people they KNOW what questions to ask me.


After all, if the saved can enjoy eternal bliss in heaven, then why couldn't the damned suffer eternal torment in hell?
[/quote]

[Age]

No, it isn't a matter of chucking away the Bible but rather becoming capable of reading the Bible and appreciating Jesus' mission. But thinking in this way is the unforgiveable question. Imagine telling a room full of educated people being told they know nothing in relation to Man's purpose for being here is dangerous.

My thoughts in relation to this are as follow:

It requires a certain person, with a certain frame of mind and a certain type of understanding to look at the Bible as a totality and extract out of it an existential platform, a way of living, a means of being in communication with *god*, and also a liturgy that a man or a group could live in accord with. There has to be an interpreting agent. But then the question becomes Who will undertake and fulfill this interpretive effort?

Firstly, one does NOT need to LEARN 'HOW TO LIVE' from the bible, nor from ANY other book.

Secondly, LEARNING and KNOWING 'HOW TO LIVE', properly and correctly, can be done in other ways. However, when one LEARNS this, then what becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR is the from WHERE the LEARNING and KNOWING COMES FROM, EXACTLY, IS WITHIN ALL, and which can be SEEN, VERY CLEARLY, in books like ALL 'religious books', which only REINFORCES that that one is ON the Right PATH in Life.

There does NOT have to be 'an interpreting agent' looking for nor working out 'what is actually true, right, and correct'. But when who and what thee True Self IS, EXACTLY, then, from this One's perspective KNOWING what the INTENDED and Right MEANING or MESSAGE, which was being INSPIRED, through human beings, can be CLEARLY SEEN and SEEN CLEARLY for what they REALLY ARE.

This One is 'the interpreting agent', which you are referring to here. But, this One, REALLY, JUST KNOWS what the Correct and Right INTERPRETATION IS, EXACTLY. This One, by the way, is the One "attofishpi" refers to, when speaking of the 3rd party intelligence, and how MESSAGES have ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN in writing languages, (although "attofishpi" only refers to the "english language" if I recall correctly, but if I do NOT, then apologies "attofishpi").

The One Who will and DOES undertake and fulfill the True, Right, and Correct INTERPRETIVE Role is thee One WHO is WITHIN EVERY thing and Who ALREADY KNOWS what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, EXACTLY. This One is INSPIRING EVERY one, ALWAYS, and is from WHERE ALL claimed INSPIRED TEXTS COME FROM. 'you', human beings, however, have just been adding your OWN personal VIEWS and BELIEFS, into the picture, which has been TWISTING and DISTORTING, the VERY SIMPLE to EXPLAIN and VERY EASY to UNDERSTAND ILLUSTRATION, which I have been PAINTING, for you.

A VERY QUICK EXAMPLE of the DISTORTIONS/MISINTERPRETATIONS that get ADDED to My MESSAGES/DRAWINGS, and then MISCOMMUNICATED is the referring to God/Me as a "He". Absolutely OBVIOUSLY is this False, Wrong, AND IRREFUTABLY Incorrect, but WHILST one BELIEVES that God/I am a "He", then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can SHOW OTHERWISE. As "immanuel can" is LIVING PROOF of this Fact.

I, thee One, by the way, can NEVER be Wrong, BECAUSE it is ONLY what absolutely EVERY one CAN AGREE WITH and ACCEPT anyway, which is WHAT I SAY and CLAIM. The 'I' being thee One, who 'you', human beings, by the way, are STILL, in the days when this is being written, TRYING TO work out is the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY?'

The spirituality or religiousness that you recommend and represent could only be received by a singular man, or perhaps by a small community of persons. You have allowed yourself to be influenced by philosophers who are actually outside of the Christian system and you can incorporate their perspectives as a sort of retrofitting. George Gurdjieff, Frithjof Schuon, and Simone Weil are examples of people who are engaged in projects of reinterpretation and even re-formatting. If you go that route then, in fact, the door can be opened to a complete revision and re-description of both Judaism and Christianity.

By just LEARNING HOW to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they Truly ARE, then there is NO need to REVISE NOR REDESCRIBE the written works of OLD BOOKS. Once one LEARNS HOW to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they Truly ARE, then what WAS Truly MEANT and being REFERRED TO, in PAST TEXTS can be CLEARLY RECOGNIZED, SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN. SEE, the True MEANINGFUL MESSAGES WITHIN or BEHIND the ACTUAL WORDS USED, just STAND OUT, BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY. Another term for this is READING BETWEEN THE LINES. Or, in other words, SEEING the True INTENDED MEANING/S and MESSAGE/S BEHIND ALL of the MISINTERPRETED MISCOMMUNICATION being PRESENTED.

They are THERE, or HERE, for ALL to LOOK AT and SEE. And, they ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR when one LEARNS and KNOWS HOW to LOOK AT and SEEING 'things' PROPERLY, or for what they REALLY and Truly ARE, EXACTLY.

I do not have an argument against doing this necessarily but it would certainly result in just one more fracture (schism) within Christianity.

Is this some reason for WANTING to LOOK FOR what COULD 'fracture', or for WANTING to just 'fracture' "christianity"?

Probably the BIGGEST MESSAGE within ALL religious texts is LOVE one another as "yourself", or as One, which will, eventually, lead to living in Peace and Harmony, TOGETHER, as One.

So, INSTEAD of LOOKING FOR the 'contradictions' or 'mistakes' in the "OTHER'S" religions, in order to just RIDICULE or HUMILIATE the so-called "other", which is REALLY ONLY 'fracturing' the WHOLE of human society, itself. and the 'world' around them, how about just WANTING to LEARN MORE and GROW "yourself" MORE?

That WAY FINDING what is ACTUALLY True is MUCH SIMPLER and EASIER than just 'trying to' FIND 'that', which backs up and supports what is CURRENTLY HELD or BELIEVED to be true, which COULD BE ACTUALLY completely and utterly, or partly, False, Wrong, or Incorrect ANYWAY.

ALL religious texts talk about Unifying and Unity, and which is the MAIN MESSAGE/S, but MISINTERPRETATION, and 'confirmation bias' for MISINTERPRETATIONS, means people just LOOKING FOR 'that', which supports a PARTICULAR BELIEF, which only then causes and creates 'splits', 'division', and 'fractures', which lead to 'conflict', 'fighting', and then 'warring'.

It can also be seen as an attempt to apply a band-aid to a metaphysical system that is actually falling to pieces. The reason it falls to pieces can be understood by examining this thread and this conversation. Though what you recommend as a spiritual process makes sense to me it could not be said that your interpretation would be accepted by those outside of a small circle.

However, the fact of the issue remains that the religion of Yahweh, taken as a whole, is entirely complicated and indeed polluted by controversy if only in the sense that a thousand people examining it extract out of it those elements that accord with their sensibilities while down-playing those elements that do not, and a thousand interpretations result.

Thee Truth IS; 'the religion of Yahweh', taken as a whole, Is NOT complicated NOR hard in ANY way, shape, nor form.

In fact the VERY OPPOSITE is True. It, like Life, and Existence, Itself, and EVERY thing else is Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, INDEED. That is; ONCE one LEARNS and KNOWS HOW to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' for what they Truly ARE.

There is simply no branch of Christianity today that is not beset with controversy and is not struggling to hold itself together against a general fragmentation.

MISINTERPRETING, causes MISCOMMUNICATION, which causes MISUNDERSTANDING, which then creates CONFUSION, and when 'you', human beings, are CONFUSED, then, literally ALL 'hell' breaks loose.

As was CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True by the way 'the world' WAS, back in the days when this was being written. The WAY human beings lived back in the days when this was being written was REALLY 'hell-like'. The perceived 'need' from GREED was causing them to 'rush around' at completely UNNECESSARY 'speeds', which only caused STRESS, which further increased MISCOMMUNICATION, and thus MORE CONFUSION, which only led to more UNKNOWING, or MORE living in a Truly MEANINGLESS and PURPOSELESS WAY, which only led to WANTING MORE to FILL an UNREWARDING, an UNSATISFYING, and UNFULFILLING 'life', which only caused MORE perceived 'need', from an UNFILLED GREED, which only led to MORE POLLUTION, and MORE STRESS, which only led BACK INTO one, seemingly never-ending, vicious ABUSE CYCLE.

Which, thankfully as we NOW KNOW, FINALLY DOES END.

The Bible was written for the distinct purpose of bypassing the literal mind and touching the inner man. That is why it annoys the secular mind limited to the literal mind.

What you say here seems a *romantic* interpretation. It is as if you are saying that with a certain interpretive key, which you have access to, all the contradictions can be resolved. And this must have to do with *bypassing the literal mind* and somehow touching or inspiring 'the inner man'.

Getting past MISINTERPRETATIONS, MISCOMMUNICATION, and MISUNDERSTANDING, which are TIGHTLY HELD UP WITHIN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS (THINKING), then there IS, DEEPER DOWN WITHIN, the REAL and True Self, or 'the inner Being', WHO NOT just THINKS 'things', It KNOWS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'.

Getting past the SUPERFICIAL, SHALLOW, and NARROWED 'thinking' of the human being, DEEP WITHIN there LAYS an INNER 'KNOWING', which is WHERE and WHEN FOUND, human beings evolve and GROW UP and OUT OF the 'human being' stage of evolution, itself.

But the Bible (certainly those books that comprise the Old Testament) were written for a range of social and political purposes, and the function of the tribal religion was, according the Yahweh, to annihilate opposition to the Hebrew tribal project. It is possible though to say that the advent of Jesus of Nazareth, and the spiritual and religious movements that came before him, represented a very different departure-point. But at that point, in fact, god is defined extremely differently. At that point god is really defined as a universal entity. Yet it is still an extension of Yahweh and it is still immersed in the original context with all its conflicts and contradictions.

There is NO ACTUAL 'conflict' NOR 'contradiction', ALTHOUGH there OBVIOUSLY APPEARS to be MANY, on and at FIRST GLANCE. But terms or references of a specific group of peoples, in relation to 'annihilation of opposition', is just the human writer/speaker's OWN interpretation/spin on things being ADDED to the INSPIRED MESSAGE, which was coming from WITHIN, 'the INNER Self'.

For example, the reason WHY God is referred to as a "he" is NOT because the word of God was speaking and saying 'I am a "he", but because back in the days when the bible was being written the writers of the bible BELIEVED that 'men' were MORE SUPERIOR and MORE SMARTER, so they ADDED the MISINTERPRETED "he" INTO the ACTUAL WORDS, which were being INSPIRED, and TRANSPIRED, from WITHIN.

God NEVER said, "God is he". God was just just ASSUMED to be a 'male gendered thing', and thus A "he", which was then, unconsciously, ADDED into the writings, and then that MISINTERPRETATION has just been PASSED ON, unconsciously, 'down the line', as they say, even to the days when this was being written and where people like "immanuel can" STILL BELIEVE it to be ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True.

SEE, SOME people REALLY DID and DO take some things on "face value" ALONE.

Like some people REALLY BELIEVE that the words, 'If people do wrong, then, in the afterlife, they will suffer forever more', MEANS that people will individually be suffering forever more. WITHOUT EVER just STOPPING to just CONSIDER that just MAYBE it does NOT ACTUALLY MEAN what was FIRST THOUGHT, at FIRST GLANCE, AT ALL.

What words like that are REALLY REFERRING TO, are DISCOVERED and KNOWN when what the ACTUAL MEANING of words like 'people' BECOME UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN, FIRST.

And, WHEN 'people' can STILL NOT YET ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND correctly, then they, OBVIOUSLY, STILL DO NOT YET UNDERSTAND and KNOW who and what 'people' ARE, EXACTLY.

WHEN 'people' do NOT YET KNOW what 'people' ARE, EXACTLY, then, OBVIOUSLY, they do NOT YET KNOW what the word 'people' was MEANING nor was REFERRING TO, in the bible, in reference to 'eternal damnation'.

BESIDES this, there is ALSO the Fact that they are NOT SURE of WHO the words 'eternal damnation' were referring to, EXACTLY, they are ALSO NOT SURE
of WHAT, EXACTLY, 'eternal damnation' is in relation to, NOR to even what the word 'afterlife' is in reference to, EXACTLY, and to ADD to ALL of this 'adult people', back in the days when this was being written, had become SO GREEDY and SELFISH that they ACTUALLY BELIEVED things, like above, was in reference to 'them' INDIVIDUALLY. Which only ADDED even ANOTHER LEVEL of CONFUSION onto all of this.

Christianity has the purpose with the help of the Spirit of making a silk purse out of a sows ear. The sows ear represents man's life in Plato's cave. yet it has the potential to become a silk purse or consciously evolved humanity.

This is immensely interpretive!

Especially when just what thee ACTUAL Truth IS could have been written INSTEAD. That is;

ALL 'religions' have the purpose of just helping thee Spirit/God make 'life' Heaven-like, Utopia-like, Nirvana-like, or ANY other Peaceful-like out of the ABSOLUTE MESS that 'you', human beings, have created and are living in 'now', when this is being written.

WHY say, "sow ears", when what is MEANT, or they represent, some 'thing' ELSE like, for example, 'you', adult human beings, being STUCK, in a cave, BEHIND your OWN BELIEFS, or being BLINDED or DEAFENED, in your OWN self-made DARKNESS, STUCK in that 'cave' of BELIEF and ASSUMPTION?

Or, when the words 'silk purse', just refers to EN-LIGHTEN-ING or EN-LIGHTEN-MENT, out of the DARKENED CAVE, from which PEACE and HARMONY CAN and DOES PREVAIL.

It is rather Alexandrian really (Neoplatonic essentially):

[Wiki}: Alexandrian school is also used to describe the religious and philosophical developments in Alexandria after the 1st century. The mix of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy led to a syncretic mix and much mystical speculation. The Neoplatonists devoted themselves to examining the nature of the soul, and sought communion with God. The two great schools of biblical interpretation in the early Christian church incorporated Neoplatonism and philosophical beliefs from Plato's teachings into Christianity, and interpreted much of the Bible allegorically. The founders of the Alexandrian school of Christian theology were Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Nick continues:

The basic reason everything remains as it is is because we don't believe we live in Plato's cave or the exoteric level of reality. Yet there are those who sense their position with the inner need TO BE.

You are proposing very personal perspectives that would result in very personal choices.

But European Christianity developed as a cultural and civilizational foundation.

[Harry Baird]

But for me to POINT OUT and SHOW the contradictions and/or inconsistencies in YOUR BELIEFS, then I FIRST NEED to KNOW what YOUR BELIEFS are EXACTLY.

On what basis did you claim that there are contradictions in my beliefs when you don't even know exactly what they are?

[D]o you BELIEVE any talk of 'eternal damnation, or torture' within the bible is meaning, or in reference to, an individual person?

That's clearly what's intended by the Biblical quotes that I shared.

Or, if you prefer to start somewhere else, then we can go there and do that also.

Just to be clear, I don't intend to indulge in this proposed public inquiry into my beliefs so as to hunt down contradictions in them.

Why would you and why do you BELIEVE some 'thing' is true, or false, if it COULD BE some 'thing' ELSE?

Why not just THINK 'it' or just VIEW 'it' that way INSTEAD?

"Think" and "view" are just variations roughly of the degree of epistemic conviction that "believe" indicates, so you haven't convinced me that belief of some sort is avoidable.

If you would like to USE this EXAMPLE as one of YOUR, FUNDAMENTAL, BELIEFS, AND you would REALLY like me to POINT OUT and SHOW the 'contradictions' WITHIN IT, then GREAT.

I've debated this idea enough with others already to be comfortable with my position on it. Feel free, though, to argue for your own position.

WHILE one is HAVING, HOLDING, and/or MAINTAINING A BELIEF in some 'thing', they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing OPPOSING that BELIEF.

I don't think that that's always the case. Many of us are willing to consider alternative beliefs, at least for some of our beliefs, if the case for the alternatives is presented compellingly.

IN the words that I ACTUALLY WROTE and SPOKE it can be CLEARLY SEEN that there is STILL NOTHING in there, TO ME ANYWAY, that is related to a person being ABLE TO LIVE FOREVER, while being tortured FOREVER MORE.

If you or "others" SEE that this is what is MEANT by those words, then so be it. I just do NOT SEE that INTERPRETATION, AT ALL.

That seems odd to me, because the quotes are pretty clear, but you're of course entitled to your own interpretation, even though you refuse to share it, let alone defend it.

And, what is ACTUALLY True AND REAL is the Fact that people are NOT conscious forever more, to even be ABLE to fell NOR experience torture.

Oh? On what do you base that claim?

[Age]

There are many different ideas and beliefs. Why not ask: Why does one need what they need, and why does one replace anything with anything. It doesn't really matter what one chooses. Each person believes what serves them.

I wonder, my belovèd [I am so glad we are talking again!] if you realize how the idea you present here is thoroughly post-modern?

Your misinterpretations and labels are of no interest to me. That's why there's not more for us to talk about -- because that's pretty much what you seem inclined to do.

We are indeed on a philosophy forum, and there are some who actually have philosophical training and philosophical habits of mind, but it is more accurate to say that it is a philosophy forum overrun by those who cannot, and will not, or who are not equipped to 'think philosophically'.

Oh, how sad and trying for the 'experts'.

You can describe all the good (emotion-based) reasons for breaking apart systems you are in reaction to, but you have no means to construct alternatives.

Constructing alternatives makes no sense. I'm asking 'how could there NOT surely be more than the rigid beliefs we humans lock ourselves into'?"

OF COURSE you are putting a question mark at the end of a statement that you BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY True. But continually writing what you are here as though you are asking a question, waiting for an answer and clarity, is OBVIOUSLY a form of DECEPTION here. As you are "asking" a RHETORICAL QUESTION correct?

You are NOT seeking AN ANSWER, but just ASSURANCE that "others" AGREE WITH 'you' and ACCEPT ALSO, that there is MORE than the RIGID BELIEFS that 'you', "lacewing" and "others", LOCK "yourselves" INTO, correct?

And, from my perspective, this is a RESOUNDING YES. That is; there IS MORE than just the RIGID BELIEFS that 'you', "lacewing" LOCK "yourself" INTO and which 'you' STRONGLY HOLD ONTO and do NOT WANT TO LET GO OF, AT ALL.

Just so I am COMPLETELY CLEAR and so that you KNOW, for sure, There IS FAR MORE than what 'you', "lacewing", BELIEVE is true.

It is a philosophical question.

But 'it' is NOT OPEN for philosophical discussion because 'it' is, OBVIOUSLY, just YOUR OPINION and what 'you' BELIEVE is true.

Which, by the way, I think you are NOT going to get DISAGREEMENT FROM, from ANY one.

So, WHY carry on with 'it' like there is SOME one who would or does DISAGREE with 'it'.

It is like you are TROLLING for SOME one, ANY one, who will 'take the bait', from which you could then 'reel' them IN, and then SHOW them what is ACTUALLY RIGHT.

Sometimes a question can help someone look further. The fact that you hurry to replace one belief with another shows how difficult this question is for you. Apparently, you need a belief structure upon which to build your empire which you can preside over? That entertains you? Not everyone wants or needs that.

Absolutely NO one 'needs' that. But, ALL of 'you', adult human being, in the days when this is being written, appear to 'want' that.

It is possible, even if you aren't aware of it, for life to work extraordinarily well when one doesn't obstruct the larger, natural, perfectly-connected flow with their dense/rigid human beliefs and ego and fear.

Like, for example, when one HOLDS ONTO and LOCKS INTO the dense/rigid BELIEF that there is NO One Truth, then this BELIEF OBSTRUCTS, STOPS, and PREVENTS the larger, Natural, and perfectly-connected Truth, to FLOW INTO that one.

It is just a shame that the one with THIS BELIEF is NOT actually ABLE to SEE and REALIZE this Fact and Truth.

I practice being a cooperative, balanced, and creative part of all. I have ongoing gratitude. Perfection falls into place. No particular story is required, nor even helpful. Why wouldn't I want to suggest that people ask how much more there might be than what they're fixated on?

You can KEEP asking the SAME QUESTION OVER and OVER AGAIN, but when NO one is DISAGREEING with what you ACTUALLY MEAN, and 'you', 'yourself", are NOT even ANSWERING the QUESTION "yourself", then REALLY what are 'you' ATTEMPTING to ACHIEVE or EXPECTING TO HAPPEN.

I will now ask 'you', "lacewing", 'How MUCH MORE might there be than what 'you' are FIXATED ON?'

So, now what is YOUR ANSWER?

You EXPECT "others" to ask it, which I just FULFILLED for 'you'. So, what now?

I have ALREADY PROVIDED My ANSWER. That is; There IS, PLENTY MORE.

What is YOUR ANSWER?

How MUCH MORE Is there to what 'you' are FIXATED ON, "lacewing"?

For starters there IS, thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'. But, 'you' BELIEVE otherwise, correct?

Many thoughtful teachers express and ask this, as well.

It's not so serious or mysterious.

This is, in essence, a 'girlish' intellectual position.

This says a lot about you.

Yes, it is true that it is possible to choose no template or structure in the realm of ideas. It is possible to do away, therefore, with all thinking or all reasoning as well. It is possible that we all make choices on the basis of what *feels good to us* or what *seems right in a given moment without reflection*. Yes! I grasp what you are saying!

Uh, no, I don't think you do. Your distorted and absurd interpretation is very small-minded. Probably because you need to protect/defend your addiction to your way of thinking and what you think you know.

PROJECTION, as well as, IF one thinks the "other" does NOT UNDERSTAND or has NOT YET GRASPED, one's ideas or views, then INSTEAD of BLAMING the "other" and just RE-REPEATING the EXACT SAME 'thing/s', how about 'you' LEARNING a NEW WAY to EXPRESS 'your' ideas or views?

SEE, the 'cause' and/or the 'responsibility' might be HELD UP WITHIN the 'one' and NOT in the "other".

Meanwhile, there are people who are expressing and demonstrating that they have very productive, successful, and fulfilling lives (physically and spiritually) without requiring or relying on views like yours or other conventional beliefs. What might THAT suggest? Are you capable of grasping that without distorting it into a cartoon image in your head?

This appears to be VERY PROJECTING, AS WELL.

But that sort of world is a world where idea-structures, for different reasons, are falling apart. That is, that people are falling away from idea-structure, and what you refer to as 'templates', and down into irrationally-based definitions, or non-definitions, based on non-thought (i.e. ideas that are not amenable to rationalization).

So, you think stepping away from traditional or conventional structures can only be interpreted in a certain way, based on your definitions and the way you think.

I do NOT see that this was meant, NOR do I think that this was meant.

BUT, this is what 'you', "lacewing", continually "SEE" in "others" writings, which I suggest is due to YOUR VERY OWN LOCKED INTO dense and rigid BELIEF here.

I can't really work with that -- just as you apparently cannot work with what I say. So, there we are.

Sounds and looks like 'you' REALLY ARE just TRAWLING for 'those' with OTHER or DIFFERENT VIEWS from 'you', and 'you' literally throwing out 'red herrings', while TROLLING, like for example continually SEEING and BELIEVING that the "other" is saying that there is ONLY ONE WAY to do some 'thing', and then REELING 'those ones' in with YOUR RED HERRING BAIT, to SHOW to "others" LOOK AT what I CAUGHT, and SEE how I PROVED 'them' Wrong, which MAKES 'me' Right, and, for now, I am the WINNER.

And, if absolutely ANY one would like to DISCUSS ANY of 'this' ANY further, then I am MOST INTERESTED.

[Age]

No one has spoken, on any level, of an alternative or perhaps a more original, a truer, a more believable metaphysics that would amend or replace the distorted Judeo-Christian social and political mythology.

Pretty much all I have ever done on this and other philosophy forums over the past 14 years is speak of what I personally believe is a truer and more believable metaphysics that attempts to amend and replace, not only Judeo-Christian mythology, but the mythology of all of the world's religions (including materialism).

And HERE, my friends, is WHY people took SO LONG to grow up and mature enough to LEARN what was ACTUALLY True AND Right.

In the words above, "Pretty much all I have EVER done is speak of what I, personally, BELIEVE is a TRUER and MORE BELIEVABLE ...".

WITHOUT EVER LOOKING AT what COULD BE, let alone just LOOKING AT what IS, ACTUALLY Truer, and MORE Truer these people would just continually express ONLY 'that', which they BELIEVED was true, or truer, in the hope of CONVINCING "others" to BELIEVE the same.

Adult human beings, back then, did NOT want to LEARN MORE or ANEW, instead they just BELIEVED that they ALREADY KNEW the truth and just WANTED TO BE HEARD and LISTENED TO, which was all DUE to the fact that they had very ABUSIVE CHILDHOODS.

However, the first thing that one needs to realize about all of the diverse religions of the world (again, including materialism) is that they each (for the most part) contain "nuggets" of truth (some more than others) that need to be mined and viewed as "puzzle pieces" that, when assembled, help to reveal what is known in Hermetic philosophy as the "prisca theologia".

Now this is VERY True.

And, WHEN the 'pieces of the puzzle' have been arranged in such a way as they FIT TOGETHER PERFECTLY, REVEALING and SHOWING a FULLY CRYSTAL CLEAR and IRREFUTABLY True BIG Picture of ALL-THERE-IS, TOTALITY, or Everything, then, and ONLY THEN, one KNOWS they have proceeded in the Right DIRECTION.

Until then being Dishonest, CLOSED, and WANTING unnecessary things, while HOLDING BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS will only BLOCK and PREVENT 'you' from being ABLE TO RECOGNIZE and SEE those, previously, HIDDEN Truths .

According to Wiki:

Prisca theologia ("ancient theology") is the doctrine that asserts that a single, true theology exists which threads through all religions, and which was anciently given by God to humans.

I, of course, could be wrong,

But which is KNOWN NOT to be Wrong, WHEN one has ARRIVED HERE.

but I believe that the core of Christian metaphysics, which asserts that a human,...

(or more accurately, the human mind/soul)

...is "created in the image" of God's mind/soul,...

...comes closest to revealing the truth of reality.

Indeed, I've even been crazy enough to create dozens of illustrations to drive that point home, of which I suggest that if you study and understand the eternal implications of just the following two illustrations alone, you will understand what I propose is the secret of the universe...

[/quote]

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, 'there contain "nuggets" of truth'.

Now, HOW, EXACTLY, will, and could, one understand what you propose is 'the secret of the universe', by just supposedly studying and understanding the eternal implications of just the preceding two illustrations alone?

1. WHY do you NOT just INFORM 'us' of what the so-called 'eternal implications' ARE, EXACTLY, in those two illustrations? (Are you AWARE to 'study' AND 'understand' some 'thing' of "another's" OWN, VERY SUBJECTIVE, creation could take ETERNAL effort, ITSELF?) Now, considering the Fact that 'you' could INFORM 'us' of BOTH 'the, supposed, SECRET of the Universe', as well as 'what', EXACTLY, IS the 'eternal implications' in those two little illustrations, then I would suggest would be UNWISE NOT to do. Especially when they are being ASKED FOR, for CLARIFICATION purposes.

2. What is 'the SECRET of the Universe'?

3. What is there to be UNDERSTOOD in the, supposed, 'eternal implications' in those two little drawings?

Oh, and by the way, what IS the 'truth of reality', EXACTLY?

As well, no one even seems interested in discussing and analyzing contemporary events in the light of the break-down in the possibility of metaphysical agreements.

Perhaps you haven't yet spoken with the right person about such issues.

So, what "contemporary events" are you talking about? And how are they breaking-down the possibility of metaphysical agreements?

And, what do the words 'metaphysical agreement' even mean, or refer to, EXACTLY?

Do we conceive of a non-metaphysical world? Is that the meaning of the deconstruction of the Christian Story? Is all of Christianity a false-metaphysics?

Absolutely not.

Again, we must mine the "Christian Story" for its valuable nuggets and leave the useless "tailings" (mythological nonsense) behind.

Okay GREAT, 'you' say these so-called 'valuable nuggets' are IN the "christian" story, "seeds", so WHERE, EXACTLY, are they, AND, WHAT, EXACTLY, are they?

If you do NOT answer this question here, then 'you' are just ANOTHER one who does NOT seem INTERESTED in DISCUSSING and ANALYZING 'things' here.

C'mon you shards & fragments, you sons & daughters of civilization's salvific Moloch!

Surely there must be more?

If you can't imagine the incredible degree of "more" implied in the two illustrations above, then keep studying them until (hopefully) it dawns on you.

Are 'you' NOT YET EVEN AWARE "seeds" that 'your' OWN dreamed up and IMAGINED; There IS a 'mind' of God, which sits OUTSIDE of the Universe, and so WITHIN, your OWN CLAIMED area of, absolutely NOTHINGNESS is a LOAD of 'mythological nonsense', just AS MUCH as the ALL of the OTHER 'mythological nonsense'?

The CONTRADICTION here is SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

Or, would 'you' like to CONFESS that 'YOUR' 'mind of God' is WITHIN Everything?

Again, I admit that I could be wrong,

And as long as 'you' REMAIN this Honest, 'you' are FAR MORE LIKELY to ARRIVE at thee ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth MUCH SOONER than the "others" of the human population.

but I propose that there literally cannot be "more" to our ultimate and eternal destiny than what the illustrations suggest.
_______

When 'you' say, "eternal destiny", does this MEAN that 'that' 'destiny' can NEVER, and will NEVER, be REACHED?

If no, then what do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN?

Did 'you' MEAN, for example, A 'destiny', which is THEN 'eternal'?

[Age]

No, it isn't a matter of chucking away the Bible but rather becoming capable of reading the Bible and appreciating Jesus' mission. But thinking in this way is the unforgiveable question. Imagine telling a room full of educated people being told they know nothing in relation to Man's purpose for being here is dangerous.

My thoughts in relation to this are as follow:

It requires a certain person, with a certain frame of mind and a certain type of understanding to look at the Bible as a totality and extract out of it an existential platform, a way of living, a means of being in communication with *god*, and also a liturgy that a man or a group could live in accord with. There has to be an interpreting agent. But then the question becomes Who will undertake and fulfill this interpretive effort?

The spirituality or religiousness that you recommend and represent could only be received by a singular man, or perhaps by a small community of persons. You have allowed yourself to be influenced by philosophers who are actually outside of the Christian system and you can incorporate their perspectives as a sort of retrofitting. George Gurdjieff, Frithjof Schuon, and Simone Weil are examples of people who are engaged in projects of reinterpretation and even re-formatting. If you go that route then, in fact, the door can be opened to a complete revision and re-description of both Judaism and Christianity.

I do not have an argument against doing this necessarily but it would certainly result in just one more fracture (schism) within Christianity.

It can also be seen as an attempt to apply a band-aid to a metaphysical system that is actually falling to pieces. The reason it falls to pieces can be understood by examining this thread and this conversation. Though what you recommend as a spiritual process makes sense to me it could not be said that your interpretation would be accepted by those outside of a small circle.

However, the fact of the issue remains that the religion of Yahweh, taken as a whole, is entirely complicated and indeed polluted by controversy if only in the sense that a thousand people examining it extract out of it those elements that accord with their sensibilities while down-playing those elements that do not, and a thousand interpretations result.

There is simply no branch of Christianity today that is not beset with controversy and is not struggling to hold itself together against a general fragmentation.

The Bible was written for the distinct purpose of bypassing the literal mind and touching the inner man. That is why it annoys the secular mind limited to the literal mind.

What you say here seems a *romantic* interpretation. It is as if you are saying that with a certain interpretive key, which you have access to, all the contradictions can be resolved. And this must have to do with *bypassing the literal mind* and somehow touching or inspiring 'the inner man'.

But the Bible (certainly those books that comprise the Old Testament) were written for a range of social and political purposes, and the function of the tribal religion was, according the Yahweh, to annihilate opposition to the Hebrew tribal project. It is possible though to say that the advent of Jesus of Nazareth, and the spiritual and religious movements that came before him, represented a very different departure-point. But at that point, in fact, god is defined extremely differently. At that point god is really defined as a universal entity. Yet it is still an extension of Yahweh and it is still immersed in the original context with all its conflicts and contradictions.

Christianity has the purpose with the help of the Spirit of making a silk purse out of a sows ear. The sows ear represents man's life in Plato's cave. yet it has the potential to become a silk purse or consciously evolved humanity.

This is immensely interpretive! It is rather Alexandrian really (Neoplatonic essentially):

[Wiki}: Alexandrian school is also used to describe the religious and philosophical developments in Alexandria after the 1st century. The mix of Jewish theology and Greek philosophy led to a syncretic mix and much mystical speculation. The Neoplatonists devoted themselves to examining the nature of the soul, and sought communion with God. The two great schools of biblical interpretation in the early Christian church incorporated Neoplatonism and philosophical beliefs from Plato's teachings into Christianity, and interpreted much of the Bible allegorically. The founders of the Alexandrian school of Christian theology were Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Nick continues:

The basic reason everything remains as it is is because we don't believe we live in Plato's cave or the exoteric level of reality. Yet there are those who sense their position with the inner need TO BE.

You are proposing very personal perspectives that would result in very personal choices.

But European Christianity developed as a cultural and civilizational foundation.

Hi AJ

First of all we appreciate Christianity differently. What you call Christianity, I call Christendom or man made interpretations of Christianity originating with a conscious transcendent source beyond the limits of the earth. So obviously there must be many forms of Christendom at the exoteric level of being but only one Christianity at the transcendent level.

There IS, and CAN ONLY BE, One Truth of 'things'.

There IS, however, and CAN BE, as MANY, perceived, 'truths' as there are perceiving 'things' and as there are perceived 'things'.

"christianity" and "christendom" are BOTH 'things' that can be perceived in MANY DIFFERENT and VARIED WAYS.

So, thee One Truth here IS there exists a species, which goes by the name of 'human being', that perceives 'things' DIFFERENTLY, and in MANY VARIED WAYS.

Now, does ANY one want to QUESTION or CHALLENGE 'this'?

Where efforts at Christendom serve as a policeman telling people what to do through guilt and duty, Christianity teaches efforts how TO BE, so as to be able to UNDERSTAND.

BOTH so-called "christendom" NOR "christianity", themselves TEACH absolutely ANY thing. However, words written down or spoken, by some people, are expressed in a way, sometimes, TO TEACH 'things'. And, whatever one ASSIGNS the word "christianity" OR "christendom" is of one's OWN CHOOSING.

For example, the above REASONING OF, and/or ATTEMPTS at TEACHING, what the DIFFERENCE between "christendom" AND "christianity" IS here is of the SOLE DISCRETION and CHOOSING of the one who just wrote and spoke those words. There is NO ACTUAL Truth in the CLAIMS, other than the OPINIONS of what those words refer to, exactly, here are of that one, ALONE.

Those like Gurdjieff and Simone Weil knew that advances in science would contradict certain beliefs of Christendom causing a loss of the need for meaning in the world and the devolution of human being.

Is the reason those two human beings 'well knew' that advances in science would contradict certain beliefs BECAUSE 'advances in science' 'had been contracting certain beliefs' for hundreds of years prior to when those two even lived anyway?

Where Simone was an individual thinker, Gurdjieff was connected to efforts towards awakening. Either way both as well as others knew the importance of understanding the complimentary relationship of science and the essence of religion. Where Einstein wrote “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” how many understand the depth and importance of the remark?

I do NOT know. How many would surmise?

Yet those who do wll be hated by the secular world

Who and/or what is 'the secular world'? And, HOW and WHY would the so-called 'secular world' HATE some people who just KNOW BOTH 'science' AND 'religion' work MUCH BETTER when COMBINED TOGETHER?

Simone Weil wrote:

"I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

Are 'you' related to that human being known as "simone weil", "nick_a"?

'you' go on PROMOTING 'it', like 'you' are related to 'it' in some way or fashion.

Read here how Maurice Nicoll describes the dangers of higher reason being interpreted by lower reason. This is the end of part one in the book "The New Man." http://yahadblogs.org/HNR/Documents/Mau ... ew-Man.pdf

The object of all sacred writings is to convey higher meaning and higher knowledge in terms of
ordinary knowledge as a starting−point. The parables have an ordinary meaning. The object of the
parables is to give a man higher meaning in terms of lower meaning in such a way that he can
either think for himself or not. The parable is an instrument devised for this purpose. It can fall on
a man literally, or it can make him think for himself. It invites him to think for himself. A man
first understands on his ordinary, matter−of−fact or natural level. To lift the understanding,
whatever is taught must first fall on this level to some extent, to form a starting−point. A man
must get hold, of what he is taught, to begin with, in a natural way. But the parable has meaning
beyond its literal or natural sense. It is deliberately designed to fall first on the ordinary level of
the mind and yet to work in the mind in the direction of lifting the natural level of comprehension
to another level of meaning. From this point of view, a parable is a transforming instrument in
regard to meaning. As we shall see later the parable is also a connecting medium between a lower
and a higher level in development of the understanding.

PART TWO

THE Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re−birth". This is their central
idea. Let us begin by taking inner evolution as meaning a development of the understanding. The
Gospels teach that a man living on this earth is capable of undergoing a definite inner evolution if
he comes in contact with definite teaching on this subject. For that reason, Christ said: "I am the
way, and the truth, and the life. " (John xiv, 6). This inner evolution is psychological. To become a
more understanding person is a psychological development. It lies in the realm of the thoughts, the
feelings, the actions, and, in short, the understanding. A man is his understanding. If you wish to see what a man is, and not what he
is like, look at the level of his understanding. The Gospels speak, then, of a real psychology based
on the teaching that Man on earth is capable of a definite inner evolution in understanding................................

Striving towards the transcendent good of Christianity is only for a minority. The majority are content with Christendom or an interpretation they grew up with and either defend or oppose. Either way, to sense the futility of the exoteric path and entering the esoteric path requires a need for truth at the expense of the pleasures of mixing in. They are rare.

Gurdjieff's 29 aphorism: "Blessed is he who has a soul, blessed is he who has none, but woe and grief to him who has it in embryo."


This used to frighten me at first until I finally realized the good sense of it. Is it Christian? Yes but not the beliefs of Christendom which only believes in the ready made soul ignoring the potential for a soul which can unify our higher and lower natures from a higher perspective.

'you' USE a LOT of WORDS "nick_a" but NEVER actually GET TO ANY REAL 'thing'.

'you' also SAY and COPY a LOT of what "others" have SAID and WRITTEN, but which STILL NEVER REALLY EXPLAINS ANY ACTUAL 'thing'.

WHEN, and IF, 'you' REACH the HIGHER LEVEL, which is being referred to here, then 'you' WILL SEE and KNOW what I am TALKING ABOUT here.

[Age]

But for me to POINT OUT and SHOW the contradictions and/or inconsistencies in YOUR BELIEFS, then I FIRST NEED to KNOW what YOUR BELIEFS are EXACTLY.

On what basis did you claim that there are contradictions in my beliefs when you don't even know exactly what they are?

On the BASIS of the WORDS that you have ACTUALLY USED and WRITTEN in this thread.

The CONTRADICTIONS in them are BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, well to me anyway. Just like the CONTRADICTIONS in the WORDS that "immanuel can" USES and WRITES in this forum are BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, to you. BUT, what parts of those words that you ACTUAL BELIEVE 'we' are YET to be INFORMED OF, EXACTLY.

[D]o you BELIEVE any talk of 'eternal damnation, or torture' within the bible is meaning, or in reference to, an individual person?

That's clearly what's intended by the Biblical quotes that I shared.

HERE is A PRIME EXAMPLE of 'confirmation bias' in its HIGHEST FORM.

So, to you, something that is an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY to occur is, laughably, CLEARLY what IS INTENDED in the writings in the bible, correct?

If this IS Correct, then it would THEN be JUST A STORY to REFERENCE some 'thing' ELSE, correct?

Also, just like in the quran about KILLING those 'people' who are NON-BELIEVERS is A STORY, to reference some 'thing' NOT YET UNDERSTOOD, FULLY, so to is the above STORY is about some 'thing', which is ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTOOD by SOME people, JUST YET, in the days when this is being written.

Or, if you prefer to start somewhere else, then we can go there and do that also.

Just to be clear, I don't intend to indulge in this proposed public inquiry into my beliefs so as to hunt down contradictions in them.

OKAY. AND, just as 'you' are RUNNING AWAY and HIDING HERE-NOW, you should NOT be SO SURPRISED that "immanuel can" DID the EXACT SAME 'thing' as 'you' are doing here.

This is the Nature of BELIEF/the 'devil'. They will make 'the person' do ABSOLUTELY ANY thing to COVER UP, HIDE, and PREVENT thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' from coming-to-LIGHT.

And, because 'I' am in NO RUSH whatsoever 'I' let 'you' RUN and HIDE for as LONG as 'you' like. This is because I KNOW thee Truth ALWAYS comes out in THE END.

Which, by the way, was JUST, THE BEGINNING, of the NEW life, which 'you' are YET to SEE and UNDERSTAND.

Why would you and why do you BELIEVE some 'thing' is true, or false, if it COULD BE some 'thing' ELSE?

Why not just THINK 'it' or just VIEW 'it' that way INSTEAD?

"Think" and "view" are just variations roughly of the degree of epistemic conviction that "believe" indicates, so you haven't convinced me that belief of some sort is avoidable.

And, 'you' have NOT convinced ANY one, other than 'you', that BELIEF is UNAVOIDABLE.

Furthermore, 'you' will NEVER KNOW what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth is here WHILE you continue to HAVE, HOLD ONTO, and be LOCKED INTO this BELIEF of YOURS here. Which, AGAIN, is just the VERY NATURE of BELIEF, ITSELF.

Also, and by the way, it can just as SIMPLY and EASILY 'argued' that is NOT the case that 'think' and 'view' are degrees of 'believe' AT ALL, but rather 'views', 'opinions', 'values', 'assumptions', AND 'beliefs', as well as many others, are just degrees of 'thought' or 'thinking'. Which, by the way, can ALL be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, or PARTLY false, wrong, and/or incorrect. While KNOWING can NEVER be false, wrong, nor incorrect in ANY way, shape, nor form.

However, 'we' are STILL STUCK IN and WITH "harry baird's" BELIEF that BELIEF is an ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY PART for human beings and their SURVIVAL.

Which, REALLY IS, AS ABSURD as it sounds.

If you would like to USE this EXAMPLE as one of YOUR, FUNDAMENTAL, BELIEFS, AND you would REALLY like me to POINT OUT and SHOW the 'contradictions' WITHIN IT, then GREAT.

I've debated this idea enough with others already to be comfortable with my position on it. Feel free, though, to argue for your own position.[/quote]

LOL HERE AGAIN is BELIEF, and 'confirmation bias' AT WORK. That is; there is NO room for OPENNESS, CURIOSITY, nor ANY WANT of LEARNING. There is ONLY enough room for, "I am RIGHT", and "I am going to FIGHT 'you' for this".

'Debating' is just ANOTHER ABSOLUTELY STUPID and UNNECESSARY PART OF human beings EXISTENCE. Sure, learning HOW to PRESENT one's OWN view of things WOULD HELP in being HEARD and LISTENED TO, that is; when one ACTUALLY HAS some 'thing', which is REALLY WORTHY of BEING HEARD and LISTENED TO. BUT, in the meantime, LEARNING to just PICK "a side" and FIGHT or ARGUE for 'it', even to the 'DEATH', has led to a WHOLE generation of adult human beings who ACTUALLY BELIEVE what they BELIEVE is true IS the "right side", and that they WILL, literally at times, FIGHT TILL THE DEATH over it.

Which, REALLY IS, MORE STUPID and MORE LAUGHABLE the MORE one REALLY THINKS ABOUT 'it'.

This one HAS DEBATED the idea that BELIEFS are an ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY NEED in order to just live, and is COMFORTABLE with THAT POSITION, which, by the way, "it' BELIEVED was true BEFORE 'it' EVEN BEGAN DEBATING about and over the POSITION. And, as what can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD here is that this one HAS NEVER, REALLY, LISTENED to ABSOLUTELY ANY thing else, which was ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct, and thus HAS ALWAYS JUST REMAINED BELIEVING the EXACT SAME 'thing' from the OUTSET.

The one is SO CAUGHT UP IN and STUCK IN the BELIEF that human beings HAVE TO BELIEVE 'things' otherwise they will just DROP DEAD that 'it' is NOT EVEN OPEN ENOUGH to CONSIDER that JUST MAYBE there ARE 'contradictions' in what 'it' SAYS and BELIEVES here. Which, by the way, is EXACTLY what 'it' is ACCUSING 'immanuel can" of doing here.

By the way, My POSITION here is, 'you', "harry baird" are NOT YET OPEN ENOUGH to LEARN and SEE, NOR RECOGNIZE and UNDERSTAND what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

And, My POSITION is ALREADY A PROVED Fact by the VERY WORDS that 'you' have USED, SPOKEN, and WRITTEN here.

The CONTRADICTIONS and INCONSISTENCIES in YOUR BELIEF are BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' HAVE TO HAVE BELIEFS, in order to live, BUT, 'you' and "others" HAVE LIVED, WITHOUT BELIEFS, to GET TO this point where 'you' now BELIEVE 'this'. Thus, CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN BELIEF, by YOUR VERY OWN ACTIONS.

WHILE one is HAVING, HOLDING, and/or MAINTAINING A BELIEF in some 'thing', they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing OPPOSING that BELIEF.

I don't think that that's always the case.

OKAY GREAT.

We WILL just HAVE TO WAIT to SEE IF you can provide ANY ACTUAL PROOF for this.

Many of us are willing to consider alternative beliefs,

WHY oh WHY does it HAVE TO BE THE CASE that one HAS TO JUMP from ONE BELIEF to ANOTHER BELIEF?

WHY can there just NOT be A BELIEF, ANYWHERE?

at least for some of our beliefs, if the case for the alternatives is presented compellingly.

One can ONLY JUMP or MOVE FROM one BELIEF to another BELIEF IF, and ONLY IF, they RELINQUISH the FIRST BELIEF, in the FIRST PLACE.

As I have been saying, WHILE one HAS or HOLDS a BELIEF, then they are NOT OPEN to ANY 'thing' OPPOSING that BELIEF.

Would you CARE to PROVIDE absolutely ANY example AT ALL of WHERE or WHEN one HAS A BELIEF, and is, at the EXACT SAME TIME, OPEN to absolutely ANY 'thing' OPPOSING that BELIEF?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

IN the words that I ACTUALLY WROTE and SPOKE it can be CLEARLY SEEN that there is STILL NOTHING in there, TO ME ANYWAY, that is related to a person being ABLE TO LIVE FOREVER, while being tortured FOREVER MORE.

If you or "others" SEE that this is what is MEANT by those words, then so be it. I just do NOT SEE that INTERPRETATION, AT ALL.

That seems odd to me, because the quotes are pretty clear, but you're of course entitled to your own interpretation, even though you refuse to share it, let alone defend it.

LOL WHERE did 'you' get this IDEA or BELIEF from that I REFUSE to SHARE my OWN INTERPRETATION?

'you', adult human beings, REALLY DO SEE 'things' in WORDS, which REALLY ARE NOT THERE.

And, what is ACTUALLY True AND REAL is the Fact that people are NOT conscious forever more, to even be ABLE to fell NOR experience torture.

Oh? On what do you base that claim?

ON THE BASE that WHEN the human body STOPS BREATHING and STOPS PUMPING BLOOD, that there is NOT a conscious, human, being within that body ANYMORE.

Although, AFTER 'you', the person, and people, come into Existence 'you' then LIVE FOREVER MORE, from the perspective and in the sense of, 'you' have an EVERLASTING EFFECT in this One and ONLY 'world/Universe', BUT, OBVIOUSLY, there is NO MORE 'you' experiencing nor, literally, being a 'being', and AWARE.

Therefore, AFTER the human body has STOPPED breathing and STOPPED pumping blood, there is NO MORE experiencing, conscious 'person', which could be tortured FOREVER MORE.

The, physical and visible, human body just CHANGES in shape and form. EXACTLY LIKE ALL of 'physicality', itself, does, AND, 'you', the invisible 'being', or as some call the invisible 'soul', just REMAINS HERE, in this 'world', or 'Universe', has ALREADY having some sort of EFFECT, 'you' then HAVE or LEAVE an an EVERLASTING EFFECT. (i still get 'effect' and 'affect' MIXED UP and thus WRONG. So if they are here, then I apologize profusely).

Now, 'you', the 'person' or 'soul', although EXISTING in SOME SENSE, FOREVERMORE, can NOT be TORTURED, because if one can NOT experience, and thus has NO sensations NOR feelings, then 'it' can NOT be 'consciously aware', and WITHOUT these 'things' that one can NOT be TORTURED, NOR TORMENTED, in ANY way, shape, NOR form.

BUT, what ACTUALLY HAPPENS is that when 'you', and individual person, is DOING Wrong, then this creates and EVERLASTING AFFECT, for the REST of 'you', people, which is what is MEANT by HELL and TORTURE, FOREVER MORE, for 'you', people.

SEE, there is ONLY One Place, and WHERE 'that Place' is HERE, in this One and ONLY Universe, which, by the way, and CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, in the days when this being written, did NOT 'begin', and does NOT 'end'. So, If 'adult people' are MISBEHAVING, then what this creates is an ETERNAL DAMNATION for the rest of 'people' LEFT HERE, on earth, or IN this One and ONLY Place.

And, the 'afterlife' term, AGAIN, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF in the days when this is being written, does NOT refer to one, individual, 'person' and what they have done AND what will happen TO 'them', individually, but rather to the WAY OF 'life' in which 'you', people, live. That is; If 'you', adult human beings, do NOT CHANGE 'your ways', and CONTINUE to DO Wrong, then FOREVER MORE 'you', the human species that is, and NOT 'you', the individual person, will HAVE TO end up LIVING IN a 'hell-like' existence, here on earth, or in this Universe, ETERNALLY MORE, while ALWAYS suffering and being tortured BY, and thus BECAUSE OF, your very OWN Wrong doing. The term 'after-life' refers NOT to one individual's own life AT ALL, but rather to 'life', itself, or 'the way of life', 'you', human beings are LIVING IN and ARE CREATING for "yourselves".

That is; IF 'you', human beings, CHANGE the WAY of 'life', which 'you' are living in, 'here-now', when this is being written, from the VERY GREEDY, and SELFISH, fighting, hating, war-torn, stress-FULL, and pollution-riddled 'way of life', to a FAR MORE peaceful and loving 'way of life', then that OLD 'way of life' DIES OFF, and A NEW-life BEGINS. The NEW-life IS the AFTER-life, of the 'OLD way of life' HAS GONE and DIED OFF, completely.

But, absolutely EVERY one is absolutely FREE to KEEP, MAINTAIN, and HOLD ONTO DEARLY their OWN INTERPRETATIONS of 'things'.

[Harry Baird]

Age,

The irony is that you are blind to your own basic contradiction, which is that even though you claim to hold no beliefs, you make a great many statements of belief. It is clear from your statements that, for example, you:

• Believe that I am contradicting myself somehow.
• Believe that the Biblical quotes that I shared do not endorse and promote the concept that, under certain conditions, individual people will be cast into hell to be tormented eternally.
• Believe that my straightforward interpretation of those quotes is confirmation bias, even though it is quotes like those that led me in the first place to my understanding of the Bible's message in this respect.
• Believe that I am under some sort of obligation to elaborate on my beliefs so that you can hunt for "contradictions" in them - despite that this is a thread about Christian beliefs, not mine - and that if I fail to meet this supposed obligation, I am running away and hiding.
• Believe that you know what the "ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE truth is" - despite that you have never anywhere that I have seen explained what you think this truth is, claiming that you can't because the rest of us are not open to it due to our own beliefs.
• Believe that debating is stupid, even whilst responding contentiously and oppositionally in this exchange, which doesn't even meet the level of debate but is something much less worthwhile.
• Believe that a person's consciousness ends with the death of their biological body.
• Believe that the universe has no beginning and no end.

It is my belief that all of those beliefs of yours - including the belief that you have no beliefs - are false. My question for you, then, is: are you open to that possibility?

[Age]

Age,

The irony is that you are blind to your own basic contradiction, which is that even though you claim to hold no beliefs, you make a great many statements of belief.

What 'you' ASSUME or BELIEVE is true does NOT necessarily MEAN 'it' is true.

CONTRARY to YOUR OWN BELIEF here I NEVER made ONE statement 'of' BELIEF, let alone MANY statements 'of' BELIEF.

It is clear from your statements that, for example, you:

• Believe that I am contradicting myself somehow.
• Believe that the Biblical quotes that I shared do not endorse and promote the concept that, under certain conditions, individual people will be cast into hell to be tormented eternally.
• Believe that my straightforward interpretation of those quotes is confirmation bias, even though it is quotes like those that led me in the first place to my understanding of the Bible's message in this respect.
• Believe that I am under some sort of obligation to elaborate on my beliefs so that you can hunt for "contradictions" in them - despite that this is a thread about Christian beliefs, not mine - and that if I fail to meet this supposed obligation, I am running away and hiding.
• Believe that you know what the "ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE truth is" - despite that you have never anywhere that I have seen explained what you think this truth is, claiming that you can't because the rest of us are not open to it due to our own beliefs.
• Believe that debating is stupid, even whilst responding contentiously and oppositionally in this exchange, which doesn't even meet the level of debate but is something much less worthwhile.
• Believe that a person's consciousness ends with the death of their biological body.
• Believe that the universe has no beginning and no end.

It is my belief that all of those beliefs of yours - including the belief that you have no beliefs - are false. My question for you, then, is: are you open to that possibility?

LOL

Just ADDING the word 'Believe' in front of YOUR OWN LIST does NOT, and I will repeat, DOES NOT mean that I BELIEVE 'that' NOR that I have a BELIEF in, nor about, 'that'.

The ONLY thing that is Truly CLEAR here is that that LIST of YOURS of so-called "statements 'of' belief", of mine, comes from YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEFS, ALONE and ONLY.

LOOK, I am the ONLY One who KNOWS whether there ARE BELIEFS within this body, or NOT. There is NO way 'you' could KNOW, ACCURATELY. So, 'trying to' CLAIM that 'you' DO is just UTTER RIDICULOUS.

And, what is NOT being MISSED here is YOUR CONTINUAL ATTEMPTS AT DEFLECTING AWAY from the IRREFUTABLE Fact that there ARE CONTRADICTIONS in YOUR VERY STRONGLY HELD ONTO BELIEFS, just like there IS in "immanuel can's" VERY STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS. But RUNNING AWAY and HIDING is just the VERY NATURE of BELIEF and BELIEFS.

The Fact that 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that human beings can NOT LIVE and EXIST WITHOUT BELIEFS is the VERY REASON WHY 'you' BELIEVE that what I SAY is A BELIEF.

BELIEVING 'things' are true is what CLOSES 'you' OFF to what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, and this is WHY people like 'you', and "immanuel can", can FIGHT and ARGUE over 'things' for MILLENIA, WITHOUT EVER PROGRESSING AT ALL. As example and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True through adult human beings.

And, EXACTLY like what 'you' have done with "immanuel can", and can be CLEARLY SEEN in YOUR LIST above here, you have THROWN IN 'red herrings', or just LIES, "argue" AGAINST 'them', and then EXPECT that this will make YOUR CLAIMS TRUE and CORRECT.

I do NOT know what is TAUGHT in ALL cultures/countries but it is like some people in some cultures/countries have been TAUGHT that people can NOT LIVE WITHOUT BELIEFS, and that 'this' is an ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth AND Fact, Which is TRULY OUTSTANDING compared to what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth REALLY IS, EXACTLY.

I go to POINT OUT and SHOW how the one who ACCUSES "another" of NOT SEEING the CONTRADICTIONS in THEIR BELIEFS may NOT ALSO be ABLE to SEE the CONTRADICTIONS in their OWN BELIEFS. Because of the amount of CRITICIZING the "other" for NOT taking up the CHALLENGE of answering questions, then what becomes VERY CLEAR is the amount of CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here.

[Harry Baird]

It is my belief that all of those beliefs of yours - including the belief that you have no beliefs - are false. My question for you, then, is: are you open to that possibility?

[A bunch of stuff]

Ah, so, that's a "No". Everybody else has to be open to being wrong, but not you. That's plain to see. That's your belief.

OK, dude(tte). Believe whatever you want to believe, so long as you don't try to enforce those beliefs on me. In any case, I'm not interested in arguing over your beliefs.

[Age]

It is my belief that all of those beliefs of yours - including the belief that you have no beliefs - are false. My question for you, then, is: are you open to that possibility?

[A bunch of stuff]

Ah, so, that's a "No".

NO it is NOT.

You are just DOING, EXACTLY, what you did with and to "immanuel can" here. That is; you SAY and CLAIM that the "other" is SAYING or MEANING some 'thing', which they ARE, or WERE NOT, and then you proceed from that Wrong CLAIM, with your OWN OTHER ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS.

Everybody else has to be open to being wrong, but not you.

LOL The ABSURDITY of this CLAIM speaks for itself.

SEE, absolutely NO one can be OPEN to ANY POSSIBILITY of being wrong of some thing, which NEVER even exists, NOR existed.

So, I, nor absolutely NO one, can be OPEN to the POSSIBILITY for some 'thing', which 'we' KNOW, for sure, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT.

SEE, If I am CHOOSING NOT to BELIEVE some 'thing', then what this MEANS IS, I am NOT BELIEVING ANY 'thing'.

That you BELIEVE and 'try to' CLAIM that I am BELIEVING some 'things'. would be like me TELLING you and CLAIMING that I KNOW what the thoughts are WITHIN that head, and doing so WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY EVIDENCE NOR PROOF, AT ALL.

That's plain to see.

HERE is ANOTHER PERFECT EXAMPLE OF 'confirmation bias', in its HIGHEST FORM, AGAIN.

That's your belief.

You OBVIOUSLY did NOT READ what I SAID and WROTE above.

If you DID, then you would NOT have SAID and WROTE such the RIDICULOUS, False, Wrong, AND Incorrect CLAIMS here.

This is how your attempts at 'arguing' goes:

It is peoples belief that all of those beliefs of yours about children - including those beliefs of yours that you have the right to rape and kill children - is not right at all. My question for you, then, is: are you open to that possibility?

You do, after all, BELIEVE that you have the right to rape and kill children. Now, are you open to the possibility that you do not have this right, which you BELIEVE that you DO?

OK, dude(tte). Believe whatever you want to believe, so long as you don't try to enforce those beliefs on me.

LOL And when QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED "harry baird" RESORTS to the EXACT SAME TACTICS as what "immanuel can" USES. That is; REMAIN completely and absolutely CLOSED, throw in LIES, ATTEMPT CONDESCENSION, and RUN AWAY and HIDE.

Also, "harry baird", NO one wants 'you' to ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS, on them, about how 'you' BELIEVE you have the right to rape and kill children.

Do you UNDERSTAND this?

In any case, I'm not interested in arguing over your beliefs.

And, like USUAL, ANOTHER one RUNS AWAY to HIDE, when they do NOT have the ABILITY to take up the CHALLENGE, and the QUESTIONING.