Christianity

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I tried to access the AI brand you recommended but I did not know how to it so I did ask ChatGPT. I guess all respectable AI brands are well ethically trained. My reply to you above, though not a quote, is what I selected from Chat to try to make my point that the attitude of propitiation is more superstitious than true. Science and technology have removed most of the pagan need for propitiating gods.

By "true" I mean it's good for people to set aside some time to recognising that we can be better people than we are, and our remorse and even our anger and fear , is atonement or at least the beginning of atonement. Metaphorically Christ is crucified every minute in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, USA, and UK.

The above is not a summary from Chat which was closer to what you have been saying Chat informs me and does not form my opinions .

It's a non-pagan, fundamentally Abrahamic need too. It's explicit in Christianity. Which is why its God is Loveless. It's universal throughout religion; “Religion is man's attempt to communicate with the weather”, attributed to Thomas Huxley, and you even bring it in to the psychology of repentance, which is fine. But to make it metaphoric of evil is empty. It is tainted with child victims blaming themselves for their parents' evil. Explicit in Christianity, in, from Christ himself, again.

Paganism is man's attempt to control natural forces. That is now largely a redundant attempt in our age of science and technology.

Self blame is a bad habit. Determinists don't self blame but are much more positive and take responsibility for personal self improvement. It's true that the Free Will doctrine is thoroughly bad and is obviously set in place for controlling the lower classes; Christianity is imbued with class rigidity. I wonder if there is positive correlation between believers and Conservatives.

I am not a Christian because I will not be told what to do by authorities I don't believe in or trust, and the more authoritarian a religion is the less I like it. Nevertheless I still love the mythical figure of Christ .

Amen.

It used to be said that the CoE was the Conservative Party at prayer. It only 80% was. And is. Self blame is a habit instilled from birth.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Explain: What reflects back on me?

Your projection. You're a great disappointment Alexis. And I'm not disappointed in myself. Only the poets, Wordsworth, Hopkins, Dostoevsky, Weil, Tennyson have understood. Not even Nietzsche or any atheist, before or since to the 'new', ever realised that God is not love. There is no greater critique of Christianity. And your response? Vacuous. Pathetic. Like IC's. Get a room.

There is no such thing as a deity that fits everyone. Your God, Alexis' God, and my God are what we each most revere and value :-

parenthood, the natural environment, some religious cult and its leader, native land, a father figure called God, the Holy Mother figure, the state, the dear leader, humanity, worldly success, self, duty.

Love fits everyone.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Did I miss something?

Yes, for about a decade.

“Obstinacy makes it impossible to hear for all that one has ears”.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Love fits everyone.

Shmaltz

[Alexis Jacobi]

It really depends on how one comes into it, but Christianity, through reading of the Gospels, and certainly the OT, is an invitation to participate in a novel. The Bible is really for Occidentals the beginning of “imaginative literature”. It enables complex, interactive visualizations in which one is an active participant. This is perhaps the main reason I am careful not to condemn too forcefully those — our dear Immanuel is surely one — who live within the possibilities of Live Action Role Playing which, I think we can face this, is what a religious mythology offers to a man.

Curiously, Immanuel presents himself as a “knower” of what Christianity really is, and thus says “I am the only one who can have a valid notion of it and therefore explain it”. Yet time and again he never succeeds in explaining anything! If some essential value is there within the religious-mythic story, what that is or should be is never conveyed! What Immanuel does succeed at, and very well, is role playing a contemptuous character who he claims is actually God’s Child and heaven bound.

But he is astoundingly immune to seeing that this is what he achieves! The critique, such as it is, is not even registered.

Now there is something astounding.

Alexis Jacobi’s God is clearly a Great King above all gods. I soar down from time to time and scatter the sparrows and then ascend to my perch above The World.

One of these days I plan to begin my World Mission!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thinking of ultra contempt-filled Dubious, who hates The Bible like a radioactive monster cockroach, I have the impression he misses a huge point: it is that all of this literature, and all situations presented through it, all turn on the issue, the metaphysical realness, of “moral problems”.

And obviously, even the ridiculous figure of Yahweh — better understood if visualized as Captain Ahab in Moby Dick — is subject to the same scrutiny, the same moral grilling, because what is actually being presented (to a discerning intellect, like myself for example) is the possibility of seeing very deeply into the issue of the moral problems of human beings.

It’s bizarre, it’s grimy, it’s really pretty fucked up, but it really best explains our own characterizations, our own performances & rehearsals in the life we live.

The phrase "de te fabula narratur" is a Latin expression that translates to "the tale is about you" or "the story is being told about you." Its origin can be traced back to ancient Roman literature, particularly in the context of moral and philosophical discussions. It suggests that a narrative or moral lesson is directly applicable to the individual being addressed, emphasizing personal responsibility or reflection.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, the curious thing among so many curious things, is that Immanuel is an absolute literalist. Though we might agree that Bible literature is imaginative, novelistic literature, for our ultra-Christian it is real history. This manoeuvre of his, when you examine it, is utterly amazing. Why do I focus on this? Merely to torment poor Immanuel? Heavens no!

We are living in a time in which people are literally Live Action Role Playing at a global level! De te fabula narratur is now being brought to the ultimate level.

Philosophically, morally, we are bound to see that on one hand we are propelled into the essence of Moral Problem …

… while simultaneously we are role playing within a narrative structure that verges on the psycho.

These games are being played out on the Grand Scale right before our eyes. Take what is happening in Israel which is the focus of maddened narrative: it is all being acted out. Literally, they are role-playing Armageddon. Psychos are talking about this stuff (ultimate wars, world-ending conflicts) on their Twitter feeds.

So Immanuel, you nut-job, you who really understand what is the Essence of the Christian message : should you not have something relevant and important to say?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Love fits everyone.

Shmaltz

True. As in your 'mush'. In the present and eternal dispensation. Love would fit every living thing that ever suffered if it were the ground of being. I used to argue, with fear and trepidation, that Jesus was the apology of God, going beyond the text of course. But no God, obviously, so no apology.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

It really depends on how one comes into it, but Christianity, through reading of the Gospels, and certainly the OT, is an invitation to participate in a novel. The Bible is really for Occidentals the beginning of “imaginative literature”. It enables complex, interactive visualizations in which one is an active participant. This is perhaps the main reason I am careful not to condemn too forcefully those — our dear Immanuel is surely one — who live within the possibilities of Live Action Role Playing which, I think we can face this, is what a religious mythology offers to a man.

Curiously, Immanuel presents himself as a “knower” of what Christianity really is, and thus says “I am the only one who can have a valid notion of it and therefore explain it”. Yet time and again he never succeeds in explaining anything! If some essential value is there within the religious-mythic story, what that is or should be is never conveyed! What Immanuel does succeed at, and very well, is role playing a contemptuous character who he claims is actually God’s Child and heaven bound.

But he is astoundingly immune to seeing that this is what he achieves! The critique, such as it is, is not even registered.

Now there is something astounding.

Alexis Jacobi’s God is clearly a Great King above all gods. I soar down from time to time and scatter the sparrows and then ascend to my perch above The World.

One of these days I plan to begin my World Mission!

Very good indeed. So you are your own God? I was a literalist for 25 years. I'd have been happy to explain till the cows came home. My literalism was tainted by science tho'. We weren't YEC. Everything else but. All true (Scots?) believers are Live Action Role Players surely? I'm very disappointed in IC that he cannot explain. I suppose if it has to be explained, like Thomism, it can't be.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Thinking of ultra contempt-filled Dubious, who hates The Bible like a radioactive monster cockroach, I have the impression he misses a huge point: it is that all of this literature, and all situations presented through it, all turn on the issue, the metaphysical realness, of “moral problems”.

And obviously, even the ridiculous figure of Yahweh — better understood if visualized as Captain Ahab in Moby Dick — is subject to the same scrutiny, the same moral grilling, because what is actually being presented (to a discerning intellect, like myself for example) is the possibility of seeing very deeply into the issue of the moral problems of human beings.

It’s bizarre, it’s grimy, it’s really pretty fucked up, but it really best explains our own characterizations, our own performances & rehearsals in the life we live.

The phrase "de te fabula narratur" is a Latin expression that translates to "the tale is about you" or "the story is being told about you." Its origin can be traced back to ancient Roman literature, particularly in the context of moral and philosophical discussions. It suggests that a narrative or moral lesson is directly applicable to the individual being addressed, emphasizing personal responsibility or reflection.

Aye. How one can hate one of the greatest bodies of ancient literature, primus inter pares at least, is sad. There are some great little moral fables in the Bible, 'Thou art the man!', comes immediately to mind. The metaphysical real...ity of "moral problems" is something invincibly beyond me. It's their physical manifestation, their painful reality that bothers me. As they bothered the Prophets. All the social injustice. All the sin. All the abuse of power. The felt, lived, horror of that is bad enough for real. God knows how bad it is metaphysically! I'm glad I can't see that deeply. Is there metaphysical kindness that can resolve it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

But no God, obviously, so no apology.

Differently understood, the issue is not that “God” might not “exist” but that all explanatory language is in question; now no longer adequate to the ‘lifting’ job; and thus the Moral Problem is that much more emphasized and dramatic, because everyone is thrust back upon themselves, into themselves.

In any case, something like that.

The theological problem becomes that much more acute. But in no sense does it go away.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh God (that is, if there is a God), please save my soul (that is, if I actually have one).

[Alexis Jacobi]

We are always instructed (reminded threateningly) that everything about Jesus and salvation and all of it, depends on this issue of “free choice”. I.e. the assent of the will.

But in an absolute chaos of moral absurdities (that is, the present) it is not in any sense clear what one must surrender oneself to.

Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done …

…becomes unreally absurd when what is planned and portended by the LARP of Armageddon is actually considered.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

But no God, obviously, so no apology.

Differently understood, the issue is not that “God” might not “exist” but that all explanatory language is in question; now no longer adequate to the ‘lifting’ job; and thus the Moral Problem is that much more emphasized and dramatic, because everyone is thrust back upon themselves, into themselves.

In any case, something like that.

The theological problem becomes that much more acute. But in no sense does it go away.

What theological problem? That people have them? I'm not surprised. I'd say all language is in question, as it symbolizes even more problematic thought, which is the job to be impossibly lifted, from sense. Morality = it don't feel right.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

We are always instructed (reminded threateningly) that everything about Jesus and salvation and all of it, depends on this issue of “free choice”. I.e. the assent of the will.

But in an absolute chaos of moral absurdities (that is, the present) it is not in any sense clear what one must surrender oneself to.

Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done …

…becomes unreally absurd when what is planned and portended by the LARP of Armageddon is actually considered.

Love wouldn't do that either.