Immanuel Can, iambiguous and the Christian God

[iambiguous]

The measure of comfort and consolation is drawn only from the enlightened knowledge that everyone is being lived perfectly in every moment.

Everyone is being lived. No one is living independently in and of themselves separate from life living itself perfectly, for there is no one that is not already life living itself perfectly. Even amid the chaos and the darkness, perfection reigns supreme.

Living life...perfectly? Again, for all practical purposes, what on Earth does that entail given your own interactions with others?

The separation is illusory, appearing real.

Total surrender to what is, is both the lock and the key.

Hold on...

Is this all tongue in cheek? Because otherwise I don't have a clue regarding how you intertwine this "philosophical assessment" into actual human social, political and economic relationships. Or, perhaps, to the extent this is attempted is the extent to which it is not...real philosophy?

Jesus the man was an exemplary illustration of what the total surrendering to life, looks and feels like.

Whatever that means?

Did Jesus die, no, Jesus is a metaphor for eternal life living and breathing here today in life itself as and through every conscious and non conscious separate singular unique expression of the same Christ consciousness.

If you say so?

Actually, I see nothing in your post that addresses the points I raised. Or is that the point?

[Perspective]

I have observed similarly. I grew up Christian+ but it took me a while to recognize some insane immorality. The dogmatic teachings of Jesus as human sacrifice scapegoat tend to be applied in interactions with others - blaming anyone who questions their immoral beliefs.

Yet, there are good aspects of Christianity, ie loving God/truth & others as oneself - as top priorities. My personal opinion is Saul, Constantine/Eusebius & others corrupted Christianity in ways to make it “anti-Christ.” Eg., If you, “put on the mind of Christ,” you carry your cross rather than shift it to make an innocent person pay.

Yes, you carry your own cross.

I personally interpret that to mean I am responsible for my own actions, I must therefore bear original witness in the moment as being the only one to be held accountable and to suffer the consequences that is paying back self accrued karmic debt. Cheating the pay back debt, is like lying, which is the opposite to living the actual living truth that can never lie or cheat, or deceive you, or betray or abandon you.

To carry your own cross is to cancel out your own burden of sin. It’s a metaphor for being carried by the Christ already in you. The Christ consciousness, conscious of it’s own inner intuitive conscience. Which is already a given.

Yes, that’s how I see it.
In my opinion, most would rather the easier way of blaming others…
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” - Luke 17

Christianity as it’s been warped, is the most popular religion, “widest gate of destruction” in the world. From a spiritual & moral sense, it is most destructive to keep blaming an innocent one. This is the essence of evil - to lie & refuse responsibility. Response-ability is actually empowering! And think how businesses pay even for negative feedback so they can improve!

[Perspective]

Just because a young woman doesn’t have children doesn’t mean she is incapable or that she doesn’t have potential.

Maybe, but Jesus says the Kingdom of God isn't like that. Instead he says, "Unless a person is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

Since you brought up a scripture, I’ll share a similar one:
“Except ye be born again, ye cannot SEE the kingdom of God.” -John 3:3
To me, being born again is looking within (to the good & evil) & letting the evil die or be transformed/born to better. And it happens by learning and understanding - being able to see clearly. And I think philosophy as well as psychology helps with this.

"To me"? Well, we can all have "feelings" about what we might prefer to think, of course; but to Scripture, that's not how to understand that passage.

We might add this: "...in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God." (1 Co. 1:21)

How I approach scripture changed after studying how biblical canon was collected & altered. Even if it hadn’t been so warped, the authors, editors, translators etc are not perfect gods. I don’t trust scripture unless it earns my trust by making sense, at least morally & intuitively - symbolically.

[Immanuel Can]

Just because a young woman doesn’t have children doesn’t mean she is incapable or that she doesn’t have potential.

Maybe, but Jesus says the Kingdom of God isn't like that. Instead he says, "Unless a person is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."

Since you brought up a scripture, I’ll share a similar one:
“Except ye be born again, ye cannot SEE the kingdom of God.” -John 3:3
To me, being born again is looking within (to the good & evil) & letting the evil die or be transformed/born to better. And it happens by learning and understanding - being able to see clearly. And I think philosophy as well as psychology helps with this.

"To me"? Well, we can all have "feelings" about what we might prefer to think, of course; but to Scripture, that's not how to understand that passage.

We might add this: "...in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God." (1 Co. 1:21)

How I approach scripture changed after studying how biblical canon was collected & altered.

That's odd. I found the same history very confirming and reassuring. I didn't used to realize how many manuscripts there were, how meticulously they were stewarded, how carefully they've been translated...in fact, I would hold up the record of Biblical texts to the record of any other ancient manuscript and have not the slightest doubt it would win.

I'm kind of at a loss to understand your conclusion. Maybe you did different research, somehow...

...the authors, editors, translators etc are not perfect gods.

Well, not gods, of course...but the question is, "Can the Supreme Being make himself intelligible to His creatures?" And I suggest that if He cannot, then he's not really the Supreme Being at all. Once He has, is the Supreme Being capable of making sure the recipient gets the account right? It's hard to imagine He would not be able to, if the Supreme Being does indeed exist. So no fallibility of the human scribes is a serious impediment to Divine revelation, for sure...the only question remaining being, "But has God done that...has He spoken through men?" His ability to do so surely cannot be in doubt.

I don’t trust scripture unless it earns my trust by making sense, at least morally & intuitively - symbolically.

That would seem to amount to you trusting your own visceral impressions, would it not? I mean, against what is one testing when one says that something "makes sense morally and intuitively"? It sounds like one's judging by mere instinct. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

As for "symbolically," that's even more difficult to understand. Symbols are always related to a reality in some way; and against what does one measure the "symbolic value," if one has already decided (perhaps "morally and intuitively") to dismiss the actual thing to which the symbol gives signal?

[iambiguous]

...according to Descartes argument, reality itself is not absolutely certain, where are these "maps" and "photos" going to exist, and why would they be more than delusions? And why would a "map" drawn by somebody else be a more certain guide than an experience had personally by somebody else? If I "map" a place I'm only deluded about, what makes that "map" epistemically reliable?

Classic IC. Someone notes maps and photographs of Detroit allow us to react to what others say about the city. But how do we know that they are not in turn just delusions? Or "delusions"?

Then the part where, to clarify things, an actual trip to Detroit is made in order to examine claims made about it.

Reminds me of IC's belief that evidence for the existence of the Christian God in Heaven is on par with evidence of the existence of the Pope in the Vatican:

...You have, at the minimum, the very "evidence" you demanded -- that you know as certainly as you "know" the Pope is in Rome, that you know God exists.

You say that the way you "know" that the Pope is in Rome is by the testimony of others -- for you say you have not been there yourself.

On the other hand, why "know" and not know?

[Perspective]

…

I don’t trust scripture unless it earns my trust by making sense, at least morally & intuitively - symbolically.

That would seem to amount to you trusting your own visceral impressions, would it not? I mean, against what is one testing when one says that something "makes sense morally and intuitively"? It sounds like one's judging by mere instinct. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

As for "symbolically," that's even more difficult to understand. Symbols are always related to a reality in some way; and against what does one measure the "symbolic value," if one has already decided (perhaps "morally and intuitively") to dismiss the actual thing to which the symbol gives signal?

Religious dogma that denies facts & tries to gaslight questioners highlights dysfunctional aspects of religion.

In this too-much-information age, for religion to survive, it must give up literal, ridiculous interpretations. But even before, this was known…

“The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” -2Cor 3

Let me give you an example of when taking biblical words literally is obviously wrong & that spiritual parables are meant symbolically or metaphorically.

144,000
Symbolism

“The number is obviously symbolic. 12 (the number of the tribes) is both squared and multiplied by 1,000 — a twofold way of emphasizing completeness” (Mounce, 168)...no one will be missing who is supposed to be there.

If one argues that the 144,000 represents a literal number, he should similarly contend that the group of which that number consists is also literal, i.e., literal Israelites...no one would be in heaven who was not of the actual tribes listed.

This would also exclude Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — who were never of the tribes of Israel. And yet, that conflicts with Jesus’ affirmation...

“many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 8:11).

If a consistent literal scheme of interpretation is pursued, here is the situation that would obtain:
* Only men will be in heaven, hence, Hannah, Mary, Dorcus, and women of like faith are without that hope.
* Only unmarried men who are virgins will gain heaven. This would exclude Abraham, Moses, Peter, and a host of other biblical worthies.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... n-7-and-14

[Immanuel Can]

…

I don’t trust scripture unless it earns my trust by making sense, at least morally & intuitively - symbolically.

That would seem to amount to you trusting your own visceral impressions, would it not? I mean, against what is one testing when one says that something "makes sense morally and intuitively"? It sounds like one's judging by mere instinct. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

As for "symbolically," that's even more difficult to understand. Symbols are always related to a reality in some way; and against what does one measure the "symbolic value," if one has already decided (perhaps "morally and intuitively") to dismiss the actual thing to which the symbol gives signal?

Religious dogma that denies facts & tries to gaslight questioners highlights dysfunctional aspects of religion.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Which "religious dogma" does these things? I'm certain that there are many that do, since "religion" as a phenomenon, is man-made. But some people confuse all truth claims with "dogma." So I'd have to know which claims you're alluding to.

Let me give you an example of when taking biblical words literally is obviously wrong & that spiritual parables are meant symbolically or metaphorically.

144,000.
Symbolism

“The number is obviously symbolic...

This is an example of making a metaphor, a symbol, out of a number. The number is literal, and the symbolic meaning is an interpretation of that. So it's not a case of too much literalism, but of not enough literalism. I assume you'd be quite happy if they had said, "The number 12 just means there were 12, and 144K means there were 144K. Mounce's interpretation, I agree, is speculative. He's metaphorized 144,000 into meaning "everybody," and I agree...that's unwarranted, both by logic and by basic exegesis. But his problem is that he's not being literal enough.

As for the 144,000, anybody who actually reads Revelation is going to know that they are not the ONLY people included in the numbers being saved, but only one subgroup of the same. (Well, except for the JW's, maybe...who used to think that the 144,000 did, in fact, represent the entire total: but even they have had to modify their theology, since there are far more than 144,000 JW's who have hit their mark in history.)

[Perspective]

... But his problem is that he's not being literal enough.

I believe some subjects like science need to be taken literally, but a book full of parables and metaphors shouldn’t. “The letter kills, the spirit (of parables) gives life.”

It is not my intention to offend. It seems that you are educated in ways I am not & maybe vice versa. I grew up very religious but have wanted to understand & get to truth. This led me to various ideas, one being James Fowler’s faith stages.

He notes that stage 2 is when children take religious stories literally. Stage 3, they see more symbolism but still bow to authority. Stage 4 is basically agnosticism - questioning everything… then there’s stages 5 & 6.

[Immanuel Can]

It is not my intention to offend.

I remain unoffended.

It seems that you are educated in ways I am not & maybe vice versa. I grew up very religious but have wanted to understand & get to truth. This led me to various ideas, one being James Fowler’s faith stages.

He notes that stage 2 is when children take religious stories literally. Stage 3, they see more symbolism but still bow to authority. Stage 4 is basically agnosticism - questioning everything… then there’s stages 5 & 6.

Then James Fowler's naive. He doesn't make a proper distinction between how one ought to read things that are true, versus things that aren't.

[Fairy]

There’s no image of the creator of creation, there’s only the creator’s creative impression. Just as there’s no image of the creator of a piece of artwork on the canvas. There’s just the impression of the artist.

Impressions are evidence of a creator who is constantly recycling creation from death to life to death to life infinitely for eternity.

Infinite, meaning unlimited cycles of “thought loops”, that cannot be found to have had a beginning or an end.

[Pistolero]

No, how would I know that? I didn't know this was satyr's forum at all: https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/

Why would satyr run the reasonable faith forum?

My mistake. I thought you were referring to the KT forum.

As for the RF forum -- https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/ -- it doesn't seem dead to me. Lots of discussions. 410 altogether.

Ah you're right, it's not dead. I think I looked at a pinned thread and didn't realize that's what I was looking at, saw last reply 2022 and thought the forum died.

I'm still curious what you think you have to gain there. Are you trying to find someone to convince you to be a christian? Are you trying to find someone that you can convince to not be a christian? Are you just trying to have a debate? What's the point?

"What's the point" of participating here, or on ILP?

What's the point of you participating here, with your conventional mind, and not where you are an administrator?
Couldn't you be just as dull there?

[Pistolero]

Why would satyr run the reasonable faith forum?

Plenty of forums spouting the same bullshyte, online.
KTS is supposed to be a hangout for the like minded.

The average mind, wanting to affirm his American indoctrination, can find a forum anywhere....like this one.

[Pistolero]

Don't you know all this?

The circumcised ones always tell you what happened to them....them never tell you why?

They need the identity of 'victim' to explain why they are constantly being thrown out.
It' is never, ever, their fault.
Free-will be damned...
The antagonist has a choice not to ostracize them....but they did not have a choice of being retarded and annoying, and shitting in every threadthe same crap....over and over.

Then, Mary claims it is because she is feared....her ideas are too threatening.
You know, like the circumcised ones explain their predictable fate as the result of envy.

Like the US. It is "hated" because of its freedoms.

[Flannel Jesus]

"What's the point" of participating here, or on ILP?

What's the point of you participating here, your with your conventional mind, and not where you are an administrator?

Couldn't you be just as dull there?

You've been quoting me in various threads, insulting me, but I don't know who you are. I don't know what I've done to upset you, or how I could rectify that if I wanted to. Do you have a reason why you're following me around insulting me in threads where that's not contextually relevant?

[Pistolero]

Following you around?
Don't flatter yourself.