Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Factually, to say "Holiness is a property of God" is actually to make a statement about one's own 'holiness'.

Um...no, no, it's not. It means that God is holy. It doesn't even predicate a single thing about the speaker. Wow. Do I have to actually SAY anything that obvious? Doesn't the grammar give it to you?

It likely goes over your head.

Aaaaad hominem!

I can read simple sentences in English. I marvel that the task is giving you any difficulty at all.

What is your actual relationship to God?

I like where things are going here.

It should be relatively plain by this point that I do not subscribe to the belief-system to which you are subscribed. I see it, I recognize it, I believe I understand its function, but I do not regard it as having validity-in-itself. It is a god-construct.

I'm sorry...I really don't think it's evident you do "see," "recognize" or "understand" anything about it. You don't even have a definition for it, apparently.

But okay, roll on.

To accept my idea would result in a melt-down. I understand this.

Oh dear...the delusions of grandeur. I'm sorry...too funny.

What I have come to is that I think god-concepts are part-and-parcel of man's psyche.

Such a simple idea. So conventional. I just marvel at how long it takes you to say it.

Circuitousness is not profundity, I hesitate to remind you. You bring to mind what Jesus said about the religious Gentiles in Matthew 6:7 "They think they will be heard because of their many words."

But nothing is surprising, shocking or even interesting in your view. It follows doggedly and obediently along with Nietzsche, Jung, Freud, Fraser and their ilk, unable to extract itself from the groove of their presuppositions, and genuflecting obsequiously at their altar. And this, you want me to think, shows you thinking for yourself?

Well, carry on...

[Alexis Jacobi]

I said: The earth was glorious long before Yahweh appeared on the (human) scene.

That's neither the Jewish nor the Christian understanding of who YHWH is, of course.

Long before the idea that Yahweh created the world, Yahweh existed as all other god-concepts exist: within an existent world in much the same way that the Greek gods were conceived of as existing. There was no need really to maintain that Yahweh created all things. All things existed. Yet it became necessary to assert creative agency. And if my understanding is correct that is how the Genesis story came to be. As you know, the Hebrew story is largely borrowed which indicates that it was conceived as (say) being useful. And the Genesis story was conceived and indeed written and assembled for specific cultural and tribal purposes. When one sees this, and when one understands this, one's relationship to the Storification changes.

I do surely grasp that Jews and Christians conceive of Yahweh as having created the world. That is a necessary assertion, isn't it, when dominion is asserted? Yahweh is not a god among gods. All other gods are false-gods. The world belongs to Yahweh, the world belongs to Yahweh's people, and Yahweh's people will eventually rule the world.

Again, once you have seen how these ideas work it becomes increasingly difficult to un-see them.

[Immanuel Can]

Yahweh existed as all other god-concepts exist: within an existent world in much the same way that the Greek gods were conceived of as existing.

Just say, "They were all fictions." It's easier to say, and just as deep.

There was no need really to maintain that Yahweh created all things.

Well, except for the fact that it was both manifest and true....

Again, once you have seen how these ideas work it becomes increasingly difficult to un-see them.

Actually, it's really, really easy to "unsee" them. They're not very challenging, actually.

Wow. You seem so easily impressed by old arguments, it's quite breathtaking. And yet, what idea here is remotely unusual? What's shocking, surprising or interesting?

I confess I'm just not seeing the "wonders" of your view. It seems in every way conventional, in every way typical of the old Positivist-day canards. There isn't a single seminal, fresh or challenging idea among them, nothing I haven't seen before, thought about, and found good reasons to dismiss. They're as stale as yesterday's toast.

So you think human beings "made up" God? That's it? That's your stunning new revelation, guaranteed to dismay your opponents, baffle all your critics, and bring us poor Christians to our knees in fear?

Really?

[Alexis Jacobi]

But nothing is surprising, shocking or even interesting in your view. It follows doggedly and obediently along with Nietzsche, Jung, Freud, Fraser and their ilk, unable to extract itself from the groove of their presuppositions, and genuflecting obsequiously at their altar. And this, you want me to think, shows you thinking for yourself?

Again, I like where things are going.

Yes, one definitely must pay attention to "Nietzsche, Jung, Freud, Fraser and their ilk" because their ideation is highly relevant to the shifts and changes that result from restructuring of our view in regard to conventional theological constructs. But I certainly do not think it stops there and with them.

I am not sure if it is correct to imply that I (and perhaps others) are doggedly and obediently following those others. As if they are pied-pipers leading children astray (and in your view to their doom).

But certainly any viewpoint that results in a deviation away from your concepts can only be seen as 'being led into darkness'. I do not see it that way at all. And I spend a good deal of time explaining what I do see, and why.

Also, it is not "the groove of their presuppositions" as if they presupposed things and then applied them. Rather, they (Nietzsche specifically) concluded things through arduous inner processes.

And that arduous process results in a new sort of conceptual order, a newer perceptual stance.

In fact, we [those who write on this thread] are all involved in this in one way or another, to one degree or another.

. . . and genuflecting obsequiously at their altar. And this, you want me to think, shows you thinking for yourself?

Can you demonstrate here before your peers what *original thinking* entails?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just say, "They were all fictions." It's easier to say, and just as deep.

If I thought that I'd say that. I see them as 'projected likenesses' and as I often say as 'constructs'. "Fictions" is not the right term because it dismisses along with the term too much content. And I very much do not believe it wise to dismiss the content. The religious structures are compendiums of many different things, and many things of real value.

I confess I'm just not seeing the "wonders" of your view.

Give it all time, child.

. . . it's quite breathtaking.

Well, whatever you do don't forget to breathe!

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, one definitely must pay attention to "Nietzsche, Jung, Freud, Fraser and their ilk"

I read them. I thought through their claims. And to be fair, here's what I decided.

IF, as an argument, their view were correct, then some of what they say would rationally follow. For example, if God were "dead" in Nietzsche's sense, or if He were a mere "projection" as Freud would say, or "archetype" as Jung would, or mere "historical artifact" as per Fraser, then some of their conclusions would follow.

I say only "some," because there were others that definitely would not.

But I also saw that then, it would not matter one whit. We live, we die, we feed the worms. If what they say were true, we may as well live in a happy deluison as in a harsh realism. There's no payoff for either, and no loss, either. In fact, it may well be preferable to live in the happy delusion, since there is absolutely no hope these men can offer, and death takes us all...and there an end of it.

Morality, then, is also a fiction, just as Nietzsche said. Why be good? Why care? Carpe diem, baby. It's simple logic: why forgo any pleasure when death ends them all?

And I saw that it makes life completely nihilistic. All attempts to salvage meaning, purpose, morals, identity, value, achievement, fame, reputation, contribution....all of it was dust. And I saw that the Atheist and Humanists were afraid of their own reasoning, unable to take it to its logical consequences and live it out, so horrible and deadening as it is. So they invent various ways of "taxicabbing" their cynicism...reserving it for insulting the "religious," but using no such tools on their own inconsistencies.

And I saw that all Atheism is a form of bad faith, to which solipsistic "religion" and "philosophy" serve as handmaids...keeping the cynical from facing the darkness they're positing at the end of their own road.

Who could admire that? If their "courage" were equally practiced in their offending of Theists and their judging of themselves, then maybe one could at least grand them the badge (for all it's worth) of rational consistency; but they don't have that kind of courage. Most of them can't get close to being as thorough with their own beliefs as Nietzsche, and Nietzsche himself had to back off at the end, and attribute special significance to things like "the life force" and "will to power" to save himself from his own darkness.

I find nothing in all that to admire. I marvel if you do.

I am not sure if it is correct to imply that I (and perhaps others) are doggedly and obediently following those others.

Well, you didn't get any of your ideas from yourself. That's pretty clear. So if you weren't obediently following the old cynics, you were merely marching under the orders of others who clearly did.

...they (Nietzsche specifically) concluded things through arduous inner processes.

Well, Nietzsche begain with the gratuitious dismissal of God...all assumptive, on his part: he doesn't even provide any evidence he's right. He doesn't seem to think he needs to. So it really wasn't so "arduous."

Can you demonstrate here before your peers what *original thinking* entails?

Sure; in regards to lots of things. But in regards to this particular question, I don't claim any. The truth is as old as God.

Whom should we follow? God, or Nietzsche? The Eternal One, or the one who, by his own account and yours, has long dissolved as food for worms?

[Immanuel Can]

...many things of real value.

There are no "real values" in your world, the one you cast for us. "Values," such as may be, are arbitrary imaginings, like "gods." They lack any referent in reality.

[Lacewing]

Several people here have pointed out that you lie and distort in your discussions with them.

You shouldn't have a hard time finding one, then. Go ahead, because I don't concede your allegation at all. But if I have erred somewhere, I'll happily correct myself for you.

However, you'll have to have some data. We don't accept gratutious claims here.

Are you not seeing/hearing what people are saying to you?

Here, I will use your own words (in blue) that you just responded to Harry in the previous post, and I've inserted the specifics that apply to you (in black). See how these words work for answering you.

"Well, I think any fair reading of this thread makes it abundantly obvious. You have read it yourself"

"The only reason you don't notice is because you're reading with an agenda in mind already."

"You can, Immanuel Can, see it for yourself. You are a reasonably astute reader, I think...so whatever you choose to say, I know you see it, too."

[Belinda]

As an ardent atheist, I once believed that Christians believed they served God, and not the other way around, and that they did not consider God to be a nice idea that serves their purpose; and that, if God did not serve their purpose, they would simply "let the idea be redundant." But, how would I know?

Yes, but Christianity, besides founded on a supernatural myth is also founded on a man's life. This down to Earth aspect of Xianity allows the Christ icon to move with times and places.

In other words, it's a supple connection between the absolute and the temporal.

You are essentially arguing that it is an urban legend concocted by the powerful to exploit the common people.

Xianity is more usually regarded as a support of underprivileged people(Camels, eyes of needles , lepers, etc.). When Xianity becomes politicised by a powerful hierarchical priesthood in cahoots with greedy aristocrats and politicians in a hierachical political structure Xianity exploits underprivileged people.

The absolute by definition is neither hierachical nor laden with values. If a connection between the temporal and the absolute is to work the connection must be a supple one so as to be universally inclusive.

[Lacewing]

I really do not like the term god anymore and find it a conceptual obstruction.

What is my relationship to that? I'm so glad you asked!

I'm glad he asked too. Excellent responses/posts from you.

I do not like the term god anymore either because of all of the self-serving nonsense that has been branded onto it for a particular viewpoint or agenda.

People sometimes want me to brand my own spiritual perspective in such a way, which makes no sense to me to do. Instead, I point to easily seen or sensed characteristics throughout all of Universal nature, such as ever-evolving diverse creation/manifestation and connection and wholeness demonstrated throughout all, as a way to refute ideas of separation, division, and rigidity (ideas which god-constructs are typically based on to serve those who are supposedly part of the 'right' and rigid division as they have defined it and claimed their god has declared it).

The way some people use their gods as a vehicle to project the worst of themselves and deny accountability for doing it, seems to become more outrageous and laughable all the time. I can only guess that such extremism/insanity must spin-up before (and in order for) naturally burning itself out (thank God).

[Immanuel Can]

Several people here have pointed out that you lie and distort in your discussions with them.

You shouldn't have a hard time finding one, then. Go ahead, because I don't concede your allegation at all. But if I have erred somewhere, I'll happily correct myself for you.

However, you'll have to have some data. We don't accept gratutious claims here.

Are you not seeing/hearing what people are saying to you?

I hear what you say. I don't believe it, though. You've given me no reason to.

I can see that in your last response, you're trying to "ride" off Harry, rather than have to go back and find some real data of your own. But Harry's claim has been asked-and-answered. So you're going to have to do more.

And if you find anything worth worrying about, I promise I'll address it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IF, as an argument, their view were correct, then some of what they say would rationally follow. For example, if God were "dead" in Nietzsche's sense, or if He were a mere "projection" as Freud would say, or "archetype" as Jung would, or mere "historical artifact" as per Fraser, then some of their conclusions would follow.

I read this first paragraph and I was reminded I am dealing with a man with a retarded intellect. I will do some of the work here that you may one day be capable of.

That *god-concept* died. The god-picture died and we killed it. We cannot conceive of, and we cannot find evidence for, the god that is described in Judaism and, perhaps somewhat differently, in Christianity. We are the guilty ones (Nietzsche says ironically) because the way that we see, or the penetrating insight we employ, has made that god impossible to see.

If you need me to I can spend even more time with you on this as, if you become capable of reading and understanding better I think your life may change.

In this sense 'god is dead'.

God is a 'projection' in various senses and the notion of 'projection' is actually a far older idea than you seem aware. I have spoken of it many times. Man conceives of god in an 'imagined space' (his mind, his imagination). I am speaking here of how Mediaeval metaphysics understood man. The perception of god depends on the clarity or fineness of the 'perceiving lens'. What pollutes the lens (of man's perception)? The world and its contaminations. This same idea, which really is Mediaeval, is also common to Vedic concepts. The courser sort of man has a messy, or distorted, or convoluted imago of god but really of all things, especially those that pertain to higher orders of perception. The imagination, and the mind, can become plagued and polluted by material factors. Thus the idea of 'purification' was very important in that world of conception.

Freud, in some sense, can be said to have borrowed an old concept, modified it to indicate, as he would because of his declared atheism, that these imagined images are strictly *inventions* that arise for psycho-physical reasons. In this way Freud explained away all the imagery, all the preoccupation and even the obsession with god-images, especially those that arose spontaneously in dreams or in art, as phantasy: projection.

Jung definitely dealt on the notion of 'projection' and he indicated, with a great deal of good sense, that we can and often do project internal content onto external object, people and events. He also is working with a modified Mediaeval idea insofar as the 'internal contamination' is cast outward. But the meaning is that the imagination is contaminated with content it needs to dispel.

Jung certainly said that *archetypes* are 'real' elements within man's internal world. And he definitely expressed ideas about the god-archetype as a sort of pattern or mold. But this too is an extension of a Mediaeval concept: an idea, an image, which is conceived by the imagination (a distinct place or facility, if you will, within the totality of man). And these archetypal images do indeed shown themselves in art, in dreams, and in conceptual sets around which perception is organized.

Frazier was an encyclopedist of mythic images, and certainly not a theologian. He provided a way for an 'educated class' to examine and think about archetypal images. I have no idea how he, say internally, conceived in an ultimate sense of 'god'.

You now, you must also be *explained*. You take your god-concept directly from the biblical narratives. There is no other way of seeing that you have at your disposal. And as a type of literalist, and a zealot, you make all sorts of assertions about god's existence.

But are you *thinking for yourself*? I don't think so. You rely on a pre-formulated picture which it is heretical to challenge. In fact to challenge it is the first step on the road to the *hell* that you define. And since it would amount to blasphemy to see in any other way, you must condemn the seeing of those men (like Nietzsche, like Goethe, like Freud, like Jung) who in certain senses had no option available but to modify the expressions about 'god'.

So, there are better -- more mature certainly, and definitely more helpful and revealing -- ways of explaining these modification in perception and description. I do not say that the end of the line has been reached (some sort of finality) but I merely note that perceptual structures have definitely changed.

[Immanuel Can]

IF, as an argument, their view were correct, then some of what they say would rationally follow. For example, if God were "dead" in Nietzsche's sense, or if He were a mere "projection" as Freud would say, or "archetype" as Jung would, or mere "historical artifact" as per Fraser, then some of their conclusions would follow.

I will do some of the world here that you may one day be capable of.

You will "do some of the world," will you?

That *god-concept* died.

Nietzsche. Old hat. And clearly wrong.

According to the CIA factbook, the last time I checked, 92% of the world thinks it's alive. And another 4% still thinks its possibly alive. The remaining 4% are the Atheists -- of which all believe that there is no God -- but not even any of the sociologically-literate of them believes the concept is dead. Everybody knows the concept is very much alive.

How come you don't?

After all, what are we speaking of here? It seems even you think the concept needs debating still...

If you need me to I can spend even more time with you on this,

It seems I don't need anything you're offering, actually. I'm not finding a single new or interesting idea in anything you're suggesting here. I'm not even finding something factually correct, in the last case.

But are you *thinking for yourself*? I don't think so.

It depends on what "thinking for oneself" means to you. If you mean, "Are your ideas invented by you," the answer is obviously "No." But if you mean, "Have you chosen what you believe to be the truth by careful thought" the answer is "Yes."

But what you "think" about that, I cannot do anything about. So you may "think" as you please.

You rely on a pre-formulated picture which it is heretical to challenge.

Like truth, you mean?

Yes, truth is never invented by me, and it is always silly to challenge it, except to come closer to the truth oneself.

...you must condemn the seeing of those men (like Nietzsche, like Goethe, like Freud, like Jung)

I don't "condemn" them. I don't need to. They're all dead. God will exonerate or condemn them, according to what they did and who they are. It's not my place even to say what the result is. God is the Judge. And they are the dead.

What I've done is consider their theories, and found reasons to take exception to their conclusions. That has nothing to do with the men themselves, though it's true their biographers claim they were an unsavoury lot, at best. Either way, that carries no water here...nor have I said it did. It has to do with their arguments. It's not ad hom.

[Lacewing]

To accept my idea would result in a melt-down. I understand this.

Oh dear...the delusions of grandeur. I'm sorry...too funny.

Immanuel Can laughing at delusions of grandeur...

Could it be that Immanuel Can has actually been planted here by benevolent, highly-advanced beings to help humankind evolve beyond the most absurdly transparent and archaic Christian delusions by acting them out himself? Perhaps there are many others just like him, planted around the world, to demonstrate such nonsense in ways that can no longer be ignored by truly thoughtful and aware minds (including progressive Christians).

If so, Mr. Can has done an exceptional job! I would love to see him on stage. I never imagined it could be done so effectively, and it actually seems too perfect to be a coincidence! NATURE is clearly geared for, and perfect at, EVOLVING despite the minds of men.