Christianity

[tillingborn]

We are talking about two different things: evolution is the change that living organisms undergo over time. Evolutionism is a made up belief that has no followers.

That's just IC's system of categorising people. They have to be sorted into groups according to what kind of ist they are.

I think that's down to his commitment to analytic philosophy, the aim of which is to arrive at facts about the world by analysing words. If there are facts you wish to arrive at and your only source is a book, analytic philosophy is the only tool in the box, but as the 20th century showed, it is next to useless for any other purpose. The main problem being that it requires strict definitions that severely limit the samples. Immanuel Can is an extreme case; when he talks about an "Evolutionist" for example, his definition includes a lot of baggage that nobody who believes evolution actually carries. He's talking about his concept, rather than real people.

[Dontaskme]

In regard to...

...

But are we going to sit on our hands and say nothing?

This is one of the reasons why people appear to engage with you, I.C.: they're trying to shake you awake from the nonsensical babblings you seem intent to believe. Such kindness from strangers!

Another reason they engage with you is to challenge a poison that you promote, while trying to discern whether you realize it or not.

I think it's clear that Gary has more self-awareness than you do. He also has the courage to ask the questions that you won't and to see/explore beyond God-answers which don't make sense.

So, who is actually demonstrating mental illness?

The irony is, while Jesus, aka (IC) is trying to save us, we are desperately trying, but seemingly failing miserably to save him from thinking we need saving. He'll never change his view, just as we will never change our view.
Jesus, aka (IC) against the rest of the atheist world is a permanent stalemate situation for him and us.

Truth is, everyone is bluffing, simply because there is nothing, no thing, not a thing making life happen or unhappen. That's the real truth.

In my opinion, you might not agree LW ...Life for the human sentience is a terminal mental illness...in that the 'sense of individuality' is an apparent phenomena that is an appearance of life itself. As life, we are all under the same illusion that we exist as a 'separate entity'....even though the separation is a total illusion, it's just not real.....in essence, there's just ''Everything'' which is slowly dying everyday. This dying starts at the moment of life's birth and it is an unstoppable (on) and (off) process infinitely for eternity. As life and death are the same one reality, just differing in appearance only.

The sense of 'I' the separation is an apparent inbetween state of two non-existent states, it's an apparent illusory appearance of this non-existence appearing to exist.

IC doesn't like that analogy, it's way too vague and banal, he prefers the God idea, that life is eternal, and that if one is good, one will spend eternity with Jesus in heaven.

I suppose we all like a good story.

By the way... NON-EXISTENCE....simply means ONE not two.

[Lacewing]

In my opinion, you might not agree LW ...Life for the human sentience is a terminal mental illness...in that the 'sense of individuality' is an apparent phenomena that is an appearance of life itself. As life, we are all under the same illusion that we exist as a 'separate entity'....even though the separation is a total illusion, it's just not real.

Is it mental illness or is it simply unawareness?

And does it matter if it's an illusion from the human perspective?

What else are we supposed to be doing?

[Dontaskme]

Is it mental illness or is it simply unawareness?

And does it matter if it's an illusion from the human perspective?

What else are we supposed to be doing?

It's a terminal mental illness, a delusion, because the mind is a myth, and we all live this myth as a reality.

Nothing ultimately matters because nothing is making what is happening happen.

We are not supposed to do anything, for we are being done. There's just doing.

But this is just my opinion only, it's how I personally view the nature of reality. It's not everyones cup of tea.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑

Unless God had some sufficient reason for allowing at least some occasions of the phenomena and actions we are speaking of as "evil." And if that were the case, we'd have to think a lot more carefully than if we just take our anger out on Him by deciding to act as if He doesn't exist...as if trying to punish God by refusing to believe in Him...which would mean we actually would believe in Him, but hate Him.

So this world is the best of all possible worlds is it, Immanuel?

Leibniz said that. I don't recall that I did. But he might have had a point; he'd have to make it. I won't.

It makes no sense to worship a creator of such a monstrously terrible place as this.

That depends.

Is this place the place as He created it? Or is it just the place we've made it?

That is why we should believe God to be a human concept. With the human concept of good, plus reason, and plus biological human sympathy, men can try to make the future better than the past.

If men do at least half of the evil that happens...like the examples you named, for instance...then are we wise to look to men for the remedy?

Your excuse for God, that He has to allow some suffering to exist , is the same as 'this is the best of all possible worlds'. The problem with this excuse is that a good God can't be all powerful if that excuse is to hold.

This world is totally either made by God or made by Nature, or God and Nature are the same. Moral evil as committed by fallen man can be explained by man's fall., although, not being a Christian, I'd personally not explain it that way. There is also , and this you consistently ignore, the fact of suffering that is not manmade; suffering such as cancers, birth defects, predation, acute infectious fevers, plagues of locusts. Surely you have read the Book of Job.

Unfortunately for us, looking to ourselves for the remedy is what we are burdened with, for better for worse.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This world is totally either made by God or made by Nature, or God and Nature are the same. Moral evil as committed by fallen man can be explained by man's fall, although, not being a Christian, I'd personally not explain it that way. There is also , and this you consistently ignore, the fact of suffering that is not manmade; suffering such as cancers, birth defects, predation, acute infectious fevers, plagues of locusts. Surely you have read the Book of Job.

Unfortunately for us, looking to ourselves for the remedy is what we are burdened with, for better for worse.

It might interest you to become aware -- strictly for a comparison point -- of other religio-cosmic pictures. In the Vaishnava religion (of India) as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita and Bhagavatam they conceive of our existence in this world (which they refer to as a 'loka' which means essentially the same but which is conceived of as one among many different such lokas or 'spheres') as being in a relational position to 'the creator'. They conceive of god as the ultimate and indeed the sole source of everything. However they define our life, the place where we are, our incarnate existence, as occurring in what they refer to as "god's external energy" as opposed to "god's internal energy".

They conceive of our existence, this existence, as being in a marginal zone and outside of -- to use Christian terms -- god's grace. In this conception they refer to this plane of existence as 'a material entanglement'. This involves an array of application of definitions about what *this world* is. On one hand, they say, the human birth is rare indeed. According to their conception it is not easy to get a human birth. The implication is that a human birth must be appreciated and taken advantage of -- for spiritual purposes essentially.

To assert this of course means the assertions rests on certain assumptions and definitions: one is that this world is a place of real danger for the incarnated being. One slip-up, one false step, and one can become mired in cycles of karmis reaction which bind one even more to 'the material entanglement'. Like stepping into quicksand or getting involved in an existential drama which pulls one deeper and deeper into entanglement in an existential plot. In this conception the deeper one gets mired in 'materialism', which results in entanglement in "god's external energy" (nature, prakriti, the unfolding *world of becoming*) the more one is bound into that *world*. As everyone knows they conceive of many different lifetimes lived and, therefore, either an ascent or a descent in a relational position in respect to 'god' as the supreme origin -- the beginning and end of all things, the source of all. One either moves toward the supreme being or one moves away from it. Standing still is also an option I suppose but a dangerous one. Again because one error can involve one in cycles of 'karma' that have to be worked out, one way or another.

So I would say and indeed I have said that the Christian concept of The Fall is better expressed in Vedantic philosophy. But the concept is similar. The Fall corresponds to an involuntary (or unconscious) descent, into incarnation which means of course entering into a flesh & blood body and one susceptible to accidents of all sorts. The soul finds itself in a *world* in which achieving satisfaction is rather impossible due to the nature of the place and the vehicle one is in. One is bound, in a sense, to make the best of a bad situation by trying to condition the world to one's needs but this is described as if "a fish tries to ride a bicycle". The soul can conceive of, and indeed senses a relationship with the eternal and the permanent (god's internal energy) and so is baffled or stymied by the nature of the world itself (the world of becoming) which is impermanent, always in movement, never stable, and of course *dangerous* for the reasons I mentioned. But like a fish riding a bicycle the vehicle one is trying to ride and dominate is inadequate. And one of the greatest traps is the enticements of pleasure and sensuality -- to which all beings a re naturally inclined.

Comparatively of course, Christians define 'sin' as that which binds one to the world or rather to a 'hellish fate'. This corresponds in concept to 'the material entanglement'. By getting involved with, by trying to depend on, the the world of material entanglement (the world of becoming), I must incur 'karmic reaction' which, in the simplistic Christian concept, is 'sin'. By definition we are all in a world that in so many ways involves 'sin'. But this sin and its effects are only intelligible if understood within a contextual relationship. The Christian sacrifices 'sin' for a life dedicated to higher ideals. But the conception itself implies a 'higher world' which is essentially a non-material world or an 'angelical world' that is (again in comparative lingo) within "god's internal energy' understood by Christians to be Grace (forgiveness, ultimate protection, etc.).

So it is recognized that there is a 'reason' for the World of Possible Horrors, and Probable Horrors, in which we find ourselves. The world is that way, at least for an aware soul or even one with an occulted and obscured awareness, to remind us that this world is not and cannot be our ultimate home. But of course this is based on the concept of other possible worlds, other possible levels or realms of existential experience. The Christian reduces this to two possible poles: either heaven or hell. But in Vedanta they is nearly an infinite array of possibilities. One could descend even more into worlds of material entanglement which correspond to 'hell realms'; but too one could ascend to 'upper worlds' or more pleasant and less obviously mortal worlds and there carry on life. But all these worlds are still impermanent, even the hell-realms. Eventually, one escapes when one grows tired of the interminable cycle of suffering. Here a very important concept or reality is defined: the agent who enters a world of material entanglement with a message, or a teaching, or a sign, or best said with knowledge about the nature of existence in any world. Prophets, seers, bringers of omens, spiritual doctors, avatars, 'holy men' -- these have and express (and perhaps teach) the 'truths' about the real nature of this world and of the soul captured in these.

Unfortunately for us, looking to ourselves for the remedy is what we are burdened with, for better for worse.

Within Vaishnava philosophy this statement would have to be modified and expanded. If 'looking to ourselves for a remedy' means getting involved in self-defined routes which lead one inevitable farther & farther into *material entanglement*, then no, that statement would not be accepted.

But if looking inwardly into the Self in the sense that the Self is a particle of Ultimate Being and, as a result of this, seeing and understanding certain specific things about the nature of this reality and this world -- and then choosing specific lines of action (or non-action as the case may be), that would conform to the Vaishnava/Vedanta concept.

So when Immanuel Can says that no many can achieve his own salvation (as he would say *independently of god's grace* and as a result of a particular form of surrender) his notion corresponds to that of Vedanta. He of course is deeply wedded to Hebrew Idea-Imperialism which predicates a 'worldly kingdom' and the conquering of all rebellious peoples (and is thus bound up in misconceptions of numerous sorts). But in the idea-realm the idea he works as the theological pervert he really is -- the idea can be examined with other lenses.

So the question (in Vaishnava terms) resolves down to proper and appropriate action and activity within 'the material entanglement'. Again, one either ascends or one descends within this conception. What uplifts? What drags down? These are the essential questions.

So I often say that when Christianity is undermined, what is undermined is a 'conceptual order' that allows one to see life through a lens involving 'layers' or 'levels'. In the absence of a conceptual structure of the sort that I just described (I only relayed a 'picture') one is left or perhaps I could say *stranded* within the World of Becoming: a mutable world, a shifting world, an *untrustworthy world* if you accept the concepts. Life then becomes "horizontal" but loses the "vertical" dimension.

This is why I say that Christianity has to be re-conceived.

[Harbal]

It might interest you to become aware -- strictly for a comparison point -- of other religio-cosmic pictures.

Have you got a photo of Jesus flying a space ship?

This is why I say that Christianity has to be re-conceived.

I could try to come up with one or two ideas, if you like.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Open Letter to Immanuel Can

Let the truth be known, let it be realized: you are possessed by a demonic parasite that controls your consciousness! You have become, perhaps through no fault of your own, a Christian Zombie infected with Hebrew Idea-Imperialism. The 'parasitic worm' has begun 'an amazing feat of mind-control'. Memetically, this disease is communicated not through consumption of feces, as with the infected snail, but through having given oneself over to a strange and incomprehensible *power*.

meme (mēm)
n.
A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.
[Shortening (modeled on gene) of mimeme, from Greek mimēma, something imitated, from mimeisthai, to imitate; see mimesis.]

I regret having to make this as plain as I have here. You have come here not to heal but to be healed!

You suffer from a disease to which we are all susceptible. Indeed it is true that we are all 'infected' in varying degrees. The metaphor that might best explain this (offer a decent picture) is that of Platos' Cave. To one degree or another we are all bound. But to one degree or another we are also freed-from and unbound. Somewhere on the scale each of us finds ourselves.

I come down to your level with Keys of Knowledge. I hold out my hand to you. Please do not bite me or gash me mercilessly!

Remember: for $9.99 a month you will have access to my 10-point liberation email course. The choice is yours. Use your free will as it should be used!

[Alexis Jacobi]

It might interest you to become aware -- strictly for a comparison point -- of other religio-cosmic pictures.

Have you got a photo of Jesus flying a space ship?

Harbal, you are a different case altogether. I'd like to start you on an aggressive vitamin regimen and light exercises you can perform at home.

[Harbal]

It might interest you to become aware -- strictly for a comparison point -- of other religio-cosmic pictures.

Have you got a photo of Jesus flying a space ship?

Harbal, you are a different case altogether. I'd like to start you on an aggressive vitamin regimen and light exercises you can perform at home.

I didn't realise you were a pretend doctor, Alexis.

[Harbal]

Open Letter to Immanuel Can

Let the truth be known, let it be realized: you are possessed by a demonic parasite

He's just had a letter from one, as a matter of fact.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A reminder:

Inside them, parasitic worms have begun an amazing feat of mind control.

Friend! Please! Try if you can to understand this horrifying metaphor!

[Dontaskme]

This is the God IC worships, and idolises.

The Cruel God of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThisWXuaze8


All religious traditions acknowledge that the world is imperfect. Where they differ is in the explanations which they offer to account for this imperfection and in what they suggest might be done about it. Gnostics have their own -- perhaps quite startling -- view of these matters: they hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner.

Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.

Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers.

Ways of evading the recognition of the flawed creation and its flawed creator have been devised over and over, but none of these arguments have impressed Gnostics. The ancient Greeks, especially the Platonists, advised people to look to the harmony of the universe, so that by venerating its grandeur they might forget their immediate afflictions. But since this harmony still contains the cruel flaws, forlornness and alienation of existence, this advice is considered of little value by Gnostics. Nor is the Eastern idea of Karma regarded by Gnostics as an adequate explanation of creation’s imperfection and suffering. Karma at best can only explain how the chain of suffering and imperfection works. It does not inform us in the first place why such a sorrowful and malign system should exist.

[Belinda]

Alexis Jacobi, I did not say looking to the self, I said ourselves. The self is not a thing, the self is a way to explain experiential phenomena. As subjects of experience we need to be totally sceptical of all of what you yourself may view as mind worms (Your letter to AC). Every theory of existence, bar none, is heuristic.
Consequently it is the responsibility of the human adult to be sceptical of hierarchical theories of power, if only for the obvious reason that those who endorse them have vested interest in them.

[Immanuel Can]

You're imagining that a theory is "a fact," and as such, exempt from doubt and critique.

The problem is that you cannot understand that evolution and "Evolutionism" are two different things.

Read Nagel. See if you still think so. And then we have something we can talk about.

If you have read Mind and Cosmos, you will know that Nagel does not question evolution; his argument is that a purely physical process cannot give rise to consciousness.

I have it on my desk here, so we can find out really quickly if I have. And if you've read it you will know that's but ONE of the lines of critique he raises against Evolutionism...which he decidedly sees as a creed, not a scientific certainty.

By the way, the book's subtitle, right on the front cover, is "Why the Materialist, Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False." Nagel's real concern is what enslaving the field of science to a false narrative is going to do, and is already doing, to science itself. He's not trying to preserve a place for God; he hopes, without reason to be hopeful, that maybe some new non-Theistic theory can be proposed that will free up science from its current imprisonment by the Evolutionist narrative; but he sees that until that happens, Evolutionism is strangling real science. That's what bothers him, really.

But you'll know that when you've read it.

... people who study evolution, including human evolution, do not study whether evolution happens, they look at it happening.

Nobody has EVER "observed" human "evolution." And you don't "see it happening" now, either.

By its own account, it takes billions of years...years in which there has been no observation, and given which, there is no chance of repeatability, since you cannot "redo" a demonstration of any allegedly "evolved" phenomenon. There nothing near a fossil record adequate to rationalize such a theory, as I already pointed out, and no mechanism even proposed that is capable of regulating such a process so that human beings all end up being "modern hominids" at precisely the same moment in history -- which is what even you and I can observe is the case.

Their arguments are inductive at best, pure narrative, really...a fact which you can see from the fact that they revise the story so frequently, every time new evidence appears that contradicts their narrative. So, for example, when Piltdown man turned out to be an obvious fraud, they didn't re-examine the theory itself; they just quietly shuffled him off the museum floor and continued. Or when the whole monkey-to-man theory was proved bunk, they just quietly dropped it altogether, from the new textbooks and dioramas, and went with the "common-ancestor" version.