Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

There you go. You just proved the case…again.

Actually, dearest one, it is you doing what you always do: avoid entirely the thrust of my post by focusing on irrelevancies. It’s okay however.

[Immanuel Can]

There you go. You just proved the case…again.

Actually, dearest one, it is you doing what you always do: avoid entirely the thrust of my post by focusing on irrelevancies. It’s okay however.

Well, that’s because the majority of your post is always so foamingly lunatic and off-point — while being so utterly self-assured, as well — that it’s mind-numbing even to bother to try to reply to that many errors in a row.

But worse: it’s boooooring.

And this last one was no exception. So I just don’t bother. If any of it represented even a remote challenge, I might actually have replied somewhat.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Duly noted!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Gary, Belinda, Alexis. Why feed the troll? For how long of the four years of this thread? What do you get out of it? How does he feed you? Are your positions refined by the fire? Endless rhetoric. Why? Don't worry, that's rhetorical too.

In my case I explained myself at least in part just recently to you. I have specific purposes that evolved out of my own spiritual and intellectual life. I could point to a deep reading of Nietzsche and also — this is a contrast — Richard Weaver that set things in motion. I felt I was ‘deeply concerned’ about Occidental categories and, in a Spenglerian sense (Weaver also deals on this) a general decline. Frankly, examining my family, my cultural context, my upbringing, I lived through processes of decadence. It became necessary to reconstruct my own self. And if one is, as I am, one fundamentally tuned into spiritual life and the realness of metaphysics, the long engagement with this thread, and lots of side reading, and my own marriage and cultural context — it is all very relevant.

No regrets.

It was Basil Willey who brought to my attention that we need, that I need, the sighting skill of that “master metaphysician” he speaks about in his (interesting and worthwhile) books. The processes of disintegration (our era is one of levels of disintegration) and reconstruction take a great deal of time and energy.

Reading people like Weaver, Nietzsche, Spengler, Julius Evola and René Guénon will have the effect of establishing self-examination through critical analysis and demand of a person that they make changes (to the degree possible).

On these forums one can decide: no matter what I will benefit here. That is a decision I made.

Gary’s position is entirely unique. As an observer I have formed opinions.

Belinda also has unique (and I think valid) intentions. She comes from a far more integrated period in English, Liberal, European culture.

So it's ritualistic on both sides. You are all Lady Macbeth to IC's damned spot. The moral failure at the start and heart of Christianity is irrelevant to this endless compulsive side show hand washing of an indelible stain all in the mind. But none of you is complicit. The metaphor is not really appropriate. But it works nonetheless.

[Belinda]

Gary, Belinda, Alexis. Why feed the troll? For how long of the four years of this thread? What do you get out of it? How does he feed you? Are your positions refined by the fire? Endless rhetoric. Why? Don't worry, that's rhetorical too.

It's so easy to demonstrate the moral failures of Christianity, all the flavours of it, the whole Neapolitan bitter-sweet popsicle. The sheer carnality and humanity of it. The whole damnationist-liberal, misanthropy-philanthropy, hate-love spectrum lolly. But most people, i.e. everyone, aren't in the slightest bit interested in questioning their morality. And if anyone else does they double down. Which you then do back. Double down back. You've surely reached a steady state of that? Do you really need constant reinforcement of your morality in weak hostile opposition?

Even emergent Christianity, transcending the fundamentalist adherence to the text that all the non-emergent are stuck with, fails. Fails the morality test. If Love were the ground of being, every eye couldn't not see.

Gary, Belinda, Alexis. Why feed the troll? For how long of the four years of this thread? What do you get out of it? How does he feed you? Are your positions refined by the fire? Endless rhetoric. Why? Don't worry, that's rhetorical too.

It's so easy to demonstrate the moral failures of Christianity, all the flavours of it, the whole Neapolitan bitter-sweet popsicle. The sheer carnality and humanity of it. The whole damnationist-liberal, misanthropy-philanthropy, hate-love spectrum lolly. But most people, i.e. everyone, aren't in the slightest bit interested in questioning their morality. And if anyone else does they double down. Which you then do back. Double down back. You've surely reached a steady state of that? Do you really need constant reinforcement of your morality in weak hostile opposition?

Even emergent Christianity, transcending the fundamentalist adherence to the text that all the non-emergent are stuck with, fails. Fails the morality test. If Love were the ground of being, every eye couldn't not see.

Your last sentence, I don't understand what you mean. I have heard the phrase 'ground of being' and never understood what people mean by it. Every eye cannot see is a fact not an opinion.
If it's your intention to cite the Problem of Evil, then you could get rid of the problem by divesting God of its attribute of all -powerful, whilst retaining its attribute of love.There is more than one way to cook potatoes.
As for Immanuel, fundamentalists are fear driven. Their intransigence is caused by fear to think beyond their safety net. IC is not a common troll who posts simply to make trouble. We need to understand the psychology of fundamentalists.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Gary, Belinda, Alexis. Why feed the troll? For how long of the four years of this thread? What do you get out of it? How does he feed you? Are your positions refined by the fire? Endless rhetoric. Why? Don't worry, that's rhetorical too.

It's so easy to demonstrate the moral failures of Christianity, all the flavours of it, the whole Neapolitan bitter-sweet popsicle. The sheer carnality and humanity of it. The whole damnationist-liberal, misanthropy-philanthropy, hate-love spectrum lolly. But most people, i.e. everyone, aren't in the slightest bit interested in questioning their morality. And if anyone else does they double down. Which you then do back. Double down back. You've surely reached a steady state of that? Do you really need constant reinforcement of your morality in weak hostile opposition?

Even emergent Christianity, transcending the fundamentalist adherence to the text that all the non-emergent are stuck with, fails. Fails the morality test. If Love were the ground of being, every eye couldn't not see.

Gary, Belinda, Alexis. Why feed the troll? For how long of the four years of this thread? What do you get out of it? How does he feed you? Are your positions refined by the fire? Endless rhetoric. Why? Don't worry, that's rhetorical too.

It's so easy to demonstrate the moral failures of Christianity, all the flavours of it, the whole Neapolitan bitter-sweet popsicle. The sheer carnality and humanity of it. The whole damnationist-liberal, misanthropy-philanthropy, hate-love spectrum lolly. But most people, i.e. everyone, aren't in the slightest bit interested in questioning their morality. And if anyone else does they double down. Which you then do back. Double down back. You've surely reached a steady state of that? Do you really need constant reinforcement of your morality in weak hostile opposition?

Even emergent Christianity, transcending the fundamentalist adherence to the text that all the non-emergent are stuck with, fails. Fails the morality test. If Love were the ground of being, every eye couldn't not see.

Your last sentence, I don't understand what you mean. I have heard the phrase 'ground of being' and never understood what people mean by it. Every eye cannot see is a fact not an opinion.
If it's your intention to cite the Problem of Evil, then you could get rid of the problem by divesting God of its attribute of all -powerful, whilst retaining its attribute of love.There is more than one way to cook potatoes.
As for Immanuel, fundamentalists are fear driven. Their intransigence is caused by fear to think beyond their safety net. IC is not a common troll who posts simply to make trouble. We need to understand the psychology of fundamentalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Till ... d_of_being

If Love were it, it would be absolutely obvious. It cannot be a lesser, hate filled and/or incompetent God. Lesser Gods need not apply for the unfillable position. In other words, nope, there are no other ways of cooking those spuds. The Problem of Evil would not exist.

And yes, fear makes hate. It cannot be groomed in this InstanCe.

[Belinda]

Gary, Belinda, Alexis. Why feed the troll? For how long of the four years of this thread? What do you get out of it? How does he feed you? Are your positions refined by the fire? Endless rhetoric. Why? Don't worry, that's rhetorical too.

It's so easy to demonstrate the moral failures of Christianity, all the flavours of it, the whole Neapolitan bitter-sweet popsicle. The sheer carnality and humanity of it. The whole damnationist-liberal, misanthropy-philanthropy, hate-love spectrum lolly. But most people, i.e. everyone, aren't in the slightest bit interested in questioning their morality. And if anyone else does they double down. Which you then do back. Double down back. You've surely reached a steady state of that? Do you really need constant reinforcement of your morality in weak hostile opposition?

Even emergent Christianity, transcending the fundamentalist adherence to the text that all the non-emergent are stuck with, fails. Fails the morality test. If Love were the ground of being, every eye couldn't not see.

Gary, Belinda, Alexis. Why feed the troll? For how long of the four years of this thread? What do you get out of it? How does he feed you? Are your positions refined by the fire? Endless rhetoric. Why? Don't worry, that's rhetorical too.

It's so easy to demonstrate the moral failures of Christianity, all the flavours of it, the whole Neapolitan bitter-sweet popsicle. The sheer carnality and humanity of it. The whole damnationist-liberal, misanthropy-philanthropy, hate-love spectrum lolly. But most people, i.e. everyone, aren't in the slightest bit interested in questioning their morality. And if anyone else does they double down. Which you then do back. Double down back. You've surely reached a steady state of that? Do you really need constant reinforcement of your morality in weak hostile opposition?

Even emergent Christianity, transcending the fundamentalist adherence to the text that all the non-emergent are stuck with, fails. Fails the morality test. If Love were the ground of being, every eye couldn't not see.

Your last sentence, I don't understand what you mean. I have heard the phrase 'ground of being' and never understood what people mean by it. Every eye cannot see is a fact not an opinion.
If it's your intention to cite the Problem of Evil, then you could get rid of the problem by divesting God of its attribute of all -powerful, whilst retaining its attribute of love.There is more than one way to cook potatoes.
As for Immanuel, fundamentalists are fear driven. Their intransigence is caused by fear to think beyond their safety net. IC is not a common troll who posts simply to make trouble. We need to understand the psychology of fundamentalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Till ... d_of_being

If Love were it, it would be absolutely obvious. It cannot be a lesser, hate filled and/or incompetent God. Lesser Gods need not apply for the unfillable position. In other words, nope, there are no other ways of cooking those spuds. The Problem of Evil would not exist.

And yes, fear makes hate. It cannot be groomed in this InstanCe.

Love is not comfortable. The Australians on board the rescue ship Madleen did not encounter comfort but they expressed love.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Your last sentence, I don't understand what you mean. I have heard the phrase 'ground of being' and never understood what people mean by it. Every eye cannot see is a fact not an opinion.
If it's your intention to cite the Problem of Evil, then you could get rid of the problem by divesting God of its attribute of all -powerful, whilst retaining its attribute of love.There is more than one way to cook potatoes.
As for Immanuel, fundamentalists are fear driven. Their intransigence is caused by fear to think beyond their safety net. IC is not a common troll who posts simply to make trouble. We need to understand the psychology of fundamentalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Till ... d_of_being

If Love were it, it would be absolutely obvious. It cannot be a lesser, hate filled and/or incompetent God. Lesser Gods need not apply for the unfillable position. In other words, nope, there are no other ways of cooking those spuds. The Problem of Evil would not exist.

And yes, fear makes hate. It cannot be groomed in this InstanCe.

Love is not comfortable. The Australians on board the rescue ship Madleen did not encounter comfort but they expressed love.

Absolutely. Uselessly. Meaninglessly. Like God. But manifestly.

[Will Bouwman]

Inscrutable and indifferent gods are Monsanto, Big Pharma. Big Oil, Monsanto, Nestle, cults such as ISIS or Taliban, cults of individuals such as Hitler, political extremism, nationalism, Zionism, Jingoism, colonialism.

Can't say any of the above match my criteria for godliness.

Ithe Christian God communicated with us via Jesus . Allah communicated with us via Muhammad and the Koran.

Doesn't it strike you as fishy that omnipotent gods have to communicate with us via humans?

[Belinda]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Till ... d_of_being

If Love were it, it would be absolutely obvious. It cannot be a lesser, hate filled and/or incompetent God. Lesser Gods need not apply for the unfillable position. In other words, nope, there are no other ways of cooking those spuds. The Problem of Evil would not exist.

And yes, fear makes hate. It cannot be groomed in this InstanCe.

Love is not comfortable. The Australians on board the rescue ship Madleen did not encounter comfort but they expressed love.

Absolutely. Uselessly. Meaninglessly. Like God. But manifestly.

There is no other way to manifest love than sacrificing self to love. There is no meaning other than the meaning we make.
You are tilting at a windmill. The difference between IC and you is IC thinks everyone including Dulcinea should fight the giant

[Belinda]

Inscrutable and indifferent gods are Monsanto, Big Pharma. Big Oil, Monsanto, Nestle, cults such as ISIS or Taliban, cults of individuals such as Hitler, political extremism, nationalism, Zionism, Jingoism, colonialism.

Can't say any of the above match my criteria for godliness.

Ithe Christian God communicated with us via Jesus . Allah communicated with us via Muhammad and the Koran.

Doesn't it strike you as fishy that omnipotent gods have to communicate with us via humans?

Churchy or religious narratives are fishy when they conflate myth and history.

All gods, including the God that is coterminous with love are man-made, social constructs. Multinational consortiums and weaponised myths are lesser and evil gods also as I said, man-made.

Will, do you not do metaphor? Cannot you see that bad institutions are either lesser gods or evil gods?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Love is not comfortable. The Australians on board the rescue ship Madleen did not encounter comfort but they expressed love.

Absolutely. Uselessly. Meaninglessly. Like God. But manifestly.

There is no other way to manifest love than sacrificing self to love. There is no meaning other than the meaning we make.
You are tilting at a windmill. The difference between IC and you is IC thinks everyone including Dulcinea should fight the giant

The Madleenos sacrificed nothing at all by their vacuous pious gesture. At what windmill do I tilt? There's nothing there. But Dulcinea! I love her! And I have her!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Inscrutable and indifferent gods are Monsanto, Big Pharma. Big Oil, Monsanto, Nestle, cults such as ISIS or Taliban, cults of individuals such as Hitler, political extremism, nationalism, Zionism, Jingoism, colonialism.

Can't say any of the above match my criteria for godliness.

Ithe Christian God communicated with us via Jesus . Allah communicated with us via Muhammad and the Koran.

Doesn't it strike you as fishy that omnipotent gods have to communicate with us via humans?

Very good. Love wouldn't.

[Belinda]

Absolutely. Uselessly. Meaninglessly. Like God. But manifestly.

There is no other way to manifest love than sacrificing self to love. There is no meaning other than the meaning we make.
You are tilting at a windmill. The difference between IC and you is IC thinks everyone including Dulcinea should fight the giant

The Madleenos sacrificed nothing at all by their vacuous pious gesture. At what windmill do I tilt? There's nothing there. But Dulcinea! I love her! And I have her!

Dulcinea is a lovely name in sound and meaning.

The giant you tilt at is the realists' God. It's only a windmill a man -made concept.

The Madleen affair was theatre . The actors took a huge risk to present the performance and put their lives and health at risk to do so. I'd be surprised if you, Martin, said theatre is vacuous.

[Belinda]

Inscrutable and indifferent gods are Monsanto, Big Pharma. Big Oil, Monsanto, Nestle, cults such as ISIS or Taliban, cults of individuals such as Hitler, political extremism, nationalism, Zionism, Jingoism, colonialism.

Can't say any of the above match my criteria for godliness.

Ithe Christian God communicated with us via Jesus . Allah communicated with us via Muhammad and the Koran.

Doesn't it strike you as fishy that omnipotent gods have to communicate with us via humans?

Very good. Love wouldn't.

Love has to be put into a real life context before we can know what it means.