Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

So what religion do we need to undermine to prevent the nuclear ELE? Christianity? Judaism and Shiism?

I think you know the answer. Does pride keep you from stating it?!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Don't get old, Dubious.

Thank you. But if truth be told, I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for the passing of years. Eventually the case will be as with all, Die Frist ist um. The question then becomes to recycle or not to recycle and if I were thus refurbished, would there still be any instance left of who I was...and more important, do I really want to know! A cosmic anonymity is not to be frowned upon.

I like it. Does the butterfly have caterpillar dreams? They come so... emergent. Full on. Ready. There would be anonymity in that infinite potential.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

So what religion do we need to undermine to prevent the nuclear ELE[E]? Christianity? Judaism and Shiism?

I think you know the answer. Does pride keep you from stating it?!

Is that a clue?

[Atla]

You can't see beyond your particular delusional religious arena, don't know where you got the idea that you could judge other arenas.

This is madness I tell you. And it makes me very angry! I only assert I am at the Ascended Master level of hyper-awareness in this specific domain. There, of course, I flutter and hover strictly within those confines. I am a crappy mechanic. I abhor carpentry, accounting, vacuuming, pruning — effectively all mundane tasks except that for which Divinity has prepared me over many laborious incarnations.

I just noticed that you managed to block my access to your bank account and I cannot process the fees and fines that have been established as necessary for your development. Very VERY clever, Atla! Now things shall be escalated to another level. You have chosen this. Sad!

En guard, cretan!

You're right, this is madness. And how do you intend to fight me btw? I can even beat you at Divine metaphysics.

You bought into this dumb old idea that the Chosen One(s) will be picked by an already existing higher Divine domain. Come on dude don't just go with the first feel-good idea because something similar was written in some ancient book. You have to take all the ideas about Divinity and then compare them to see which one is the most probable one. (It's best to learn to compare different possible universes in your mind, for this.)

(Arguably) the most probable scenario is that the Divine doesn't even exist yet, but the Chosen One(s) will become the Divine in the future. And a Chosen One probably won't be you as you're too dumb irrational and emotionally stunted. Not Divinity-material imo.

[seeds]

I don't know how IC believes transcendence and Immanence at the same time.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Now I am not suggesting that this represents IC's take on this issue,...

...however, each of us has already literally experienced a natural (and visualizable) metaphor for how the transcendence and immanence of a singular living entity can be an actuality.

Indeed, when we once (as fetuses) were momentarily encapsulated within the living fabric of our mother's womb, we implicitly (albeit unconsciously) witnessed the presence of a being (our mother) who was both immanent - and - transcendent at the same time.

Why is this "natural" and "organic" metaphor not a compelling way of picturing the immanence and transcendence of God?

To help you better understand how a living entity can not only be both immanent and transcendent simultaneously, but also "omnipresent",...

...then see my little soap opera: "Oh the Irony" at the following link...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/fuck- ... -%E2%80%A6[/url]
_______

[Belinda]

I don't know how IC believes transcendence and Immanence at the same time.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Now I am not suggesting that this represents IC's take on this issue,...

...however, each of us has already literally experienced a natural (and visualizable) metaphor for how the transcendence and immanence of a singular living entity can be an actuality.

Indeed, when we once (as fetuses) were momentarily encapsulated within the living fabric of our mother's womb, we implicitly (albeit unconsciously) witnessed the presence of a being (our mother) who was both immanent - and - transcendent at the same time.

Why is this "natural" and "organic" metaphor not a compelling way of picturing the immanence and transcendence of God?

To help you better understand how a living entity can not only be both immanent and transcendent simultaneously, but also "omnipresent",...

...then see my little soap opera: "Oh the Irony" at the following link...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/fuck- ... -%E2%80%A6[/url]
_______

Thanks seeds . But my mother, while I was in her womb and for a few months after I was born ,was the same person as myself, that's to say she was wholly and solely immanent in my life as a young infant.I did not see her as other than me until I developed a little more.

I can imagine God as other only when I suspend my disbelief .God ,as impetus of change, time, space, and force, is not another person but is simply love .

[Belinda]

Because it pre-empts, is prevenient of, all that exists, that is; from eternity, for infinity. All that has existed, exists, will exist, from and to forever, all that comes and goes, is encapsulated, thought, sustained, willed in God. Or it would do if He were necessary. But nature is its own ground of being.

I still don't enjoy his use of English which is my point that you don't seem to understand. I don't always enjoy other people's metaphors even when they are best selling authors.

I can't understand it for you. I understand perfectly that you can't.

That's okay then . In the case of God as prime mover I prefer an automobile metaphor to a garden metaphor.

[iambiguous]

Excusing God
Raymond Tallis highlights the problem of evil.

For Goff and some theologians, the explanation is to be found in the idea that the deity, though benevolent, has limited power. So, as much as God would wish to eradicate suffering, it lies beyond his capacity to do so.

Then back to what I construe to be the beauty of it all for some: the fact that all they need do is to believe in Him, is to have faith in Him. Why? Because that is what makes it true. And that includes any number of truly conflicting accounts and assessments of a God, the God.

And what then seems crucial here is this: that when those who act on what they merely believe about God and religion, it can precipitate dire consequences for those who either believe in No God or the wrong God [religious/spiritual path].

In other words [and I cite human history to date] the more things change here the more they stay basically the same.

This defence is not persuasive. It seems unlikely that a being capable of creating a universe out of nothing, and setting in motion those processes by which life in all its astonishing variety emerged from lifeless stuff, and by which conscious life woke up out of insentient life, should be unable to meet the seemingly lesser challenge of making life pain-free, or of adjusting the order of things such that its crowning glory – human beings – should be universally kind, thoughtful, and truthful, committed to making life better for their fellows. Is it really easier to make a universe out of a void than making a pain-free life, or consistently good people?

Of course, you can go from one denomination to another here and encounter any number of conflicting assessments of what their own God is either capable of or incapable of. But then, alas, how exasperating that can be for those like me with so much at stake on both sides of the grave.

Then the truly mysterious part [for me] where God is connected to the universe. In fact, some embrace the assumption that the universe itself is God. Only that gets tricky because which came first, the laws of matter "somehow" evolving into God, or God creating the laws of matter.

Finally, the part where the human brain itself is either capable or incapable of pinning this all down ontologically and teleologically.

[seeds]

I don't know how IC believes transcendence and Immanence at the same time.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Now I am not suggesting that this represents IC's take on this issue,...

...however, each of us has already literally experienced a natural (and visualizable) metaphor for how the transcendence and immanence of a singular living entity can be an actuality.

Indeed, when we once (as fetuses) were momentarily encapsulated within the living fabric of our mother's womb, we implicitly (albeit unconsciously) witnessed the presence of a being (our mother) who was both immanent - and - transcendent at the same time.

Why is this "natural" and "organic" metaphor not a compelling way of picturing the immanence and transcendence of God?

To help you better understand how a living entity can not only be both immanent and transcendent simultaneously, but also "omnipresent",...

...then see my little soap opera: "Oh the Irony" at the following link...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/fuck- ... -%E2%80%A6[/url]
_______

Thanks seeds . But my mother, while I was in her womb and for a few months after I was born ,was the same person as myself, that's to say she was wholly and solely immanent in my life as a young infant.I did not see her as other than me until I developed a little more.

It's not that my metaphor can't be wrong,...

...however, how can anyone make a point via metaphor if you're simply going to ignore the structure of the metaphor?

The metaphor had nothing to do with the relationship you had with your mother "after you were born" out of her, for it (the metaphor) was fully (and only) referencing the time you spent within her womb.

Furthermore, regardless of how you now say (in retrospect) that you did not see her as "other than you" until you developed a little more,...

...the literal truth of the matter is that as a fully born infant, you were indeed separate from her,...

(as in a permanently fixed and wholly autonomous [mind-based] "I Am-ness")

...regardless of how you now picture the situation from the perspective of your advanced age.

Please tell me that you're not the type of philosopher who sees no difference between the mind and the body.
_______

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Pantheism is absurd. Good for the times, Spinoza. The noosphere. Tipler. Sigh. There is no emergence above us. And Solaris is primus inter pares as one of the most beautiful books ever beautifully filmed.

Nature is infinite and eternal, God or no, and its laws are prevenient of Him. He would only humbly submit to and instantiate them. PanENtheistically. From forever.

[Eodnhoj7]

You deceive yourself.

You claim rationality and yet provide nothing but assertion, as evidenced by your response...who is really the deceived one?

This said by a man who believes he is ongoingly assaulted by aliens.

You are using logic in the service of unexaminable beliefs. You are not just using logic by any means. It's all rhetoric. And you feel it. You use logic in a way reminiscent of infinitesimal calculus. Everything becomes indistinguishable before it disappears, black is white, if you look at it closely enough.

I never said assaulted. And examination is a projection of beliefs of how reality occurs...that is what a test is, the projection of belief in accords to how reality is interpreted for the time.

I used logic according to a system of logic and then am accused of being illogical?

....You are better than that statement...try again.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You claim rationality and yet provide nothing but assertion, as evidenced by your response...who is really the deceived one?

This said by a man who believes he is ongoingly assaulted by aliens.

You are using logic in the service of unexaminable beliefs. You are not just using logic by any means. It's all rhetoric. And you feel it. You use logic in a way reminiscent of infinitesimal calculus. Everything becomes indistinguishable before it disappears, black is white, if you look at it closely enough.

I never said assaulted. And examination is a projection of beliefs of how reality occurs...that is what a test is, the projection of belief in accords to how reality is interpreted for the time.

I used logic according to a system of logic and then am accused of being illogical?

....You are better than that statement...try again.

So they ask nicely?

Because you don't start with logic. Nobody does.

Here for example, "The Symbolism of Language Grounds Meaning in Spatial Curvature".

And you are not the arbiter of better. Except as a subjective beholder of course.

[Belinda]

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Now I am not suggesting that this represents IC's take on this issue,...

...however, each of us has already literally experienced a natural (and visualizable) metaphor for how the transcendence and immanence of a singular living entity can be an actuality.

Indeed, when we once (as fetuses) were momentarily encapsulated within the living fabric of our mother's womb, we implicitly (albeit unconsciously) witnessed the presence of a being (our mother) who was both immanent - and - transcendent at the same time.

Why is this "natural" and "organic" metaphor not a compelling way of picturing the immanence and transcendence of God?

To help you better understand how a living entity can not only be both immanent and transcendent simultaneously, but also "omnipresent",...

...then see my little soap opera: "Oh the Irony" at the following link...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/fuck- ... -%E2%80%A6[/url]
_______

Thanks seeds . But my mother, while I was in her womb and for a few months after I was born ,was the same person as myself, that's to say she was wholly and solely immanent in my life as a young infant.I did not see her as other than me until I developed a little more.

It's not that my metaphor can't be wrong,...

...however, how can anyone make a point via metaphor if you're simply going to ignore the structure of the metaphor?

The metaphor had nothing to do with the relationship you had with your mother "after you were born" out of her, for it (the metaphor) was fully (and only) referencing the time you spent within her womb.

Furthermore, regardless of how you now say (in retrospect) that you did not see her as "other than you" until you developed a little more,...

...the literal truth of the matter is that as a fully born infant, you were indeed separate from her,...

(as in a permanently fixed and wholly autonomous [mind-based] "I Am-ness")

...regardless of how you now picture the situation from the perspective of your advanced age.

Please tell me that you're not the type of philosopher who sees no difference between the mind and the body.
_______

But it was not a metaphor it was an actual illustration of self + other. My contention is the baby in the womb scenario illustrates immanence of the mother not transcendence of the mother. Detachment from the placenta is not definitive of separation from the mother .Unless a newborn is fostered he will die without his mother.

I am the sort of philosopher who sees the body and the mind as two aspects of the same----not identical -with, but two aspects. Not identical but two ways we view the same event. For instance the neuroscientist views the event from the point of view of body, while the psychologist views the same event from the point of view of mind.

I am the sort of philosopher who believes, concerning living animal systems, that mind cannot exist without body and body cannot exist without mind. I believe that quantity and quality of brainmind varies among species.

As Earthborn creatures what mostly concerns us or should concern us is the immanent God who BTW is the aspect of deity Jesus was concerned to explain to us. In the scenario of mother and child ,an actual scenario, the immanent God in us takes care of mother and child as a unit which extends through maternal health to housing and nutrition of the mother's family and community as a whole. The immanent deity is concerned with politics and economics.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If the metaphysics of reality is grounded in sacrifice, negation in other terms, by which a synthesis is achieved then it is most likely the case that Christianity is very close to the truth:

1. Jesus is the synthesis of God and man.

2. The sacrificial nature of reality corroborates with a self-sacrificial moral code.

3. Jesus was sinless and yet bore the sin of man...sin being the judgements and distinctions by which reality is warped where some aspect of reality is idolized by the act of judging. The sinlessness of God bearing all sin is a perfect synthesis.

4. The death of God shows God is not subject to pure power, for if God was subject to pure power then there would be a God beyond God. By God abandoning God God is no longer subject to God.

a) If
a.1) reality
a.1.i) metaphysics
a.2) sacrifice (2)
a.2.i) negation
b) synthesis (1)
c) Christianity (1-4)
d) truth

The logic? As opposed to the axioms.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think it fair to say that over a few pages now we have have gone some distance from the banks of the Ilissus …

Please people, please!