Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Long before I threw my blessèd Gurudev off that cliff, he used always to say:

…Hell now is not exterior, is not to be got out of, is the coat of your own self.

I miss the bastard!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Open Letter To Atla:

I confess that I do not see why the very existence of an invisible world, wee-minded Atla, may not in part depend on the personal response which any one of us may make to the religious appeal. Think on it: God himself, in short, may draw vital strength and increase of very being from our fidelity. For my own part, I do not know what the sweat and blood and tragedy of this life mean, if they mean anything short of this. If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals on Philosophy Now from which one bickering, likely deranged participant may withdraw at will.

But it feels like a real fight — as if there were something really wild in the universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses, are needed to redeem; and first of all to redeem our own hearts from atheisms and fears.

[NB: The Course® is always available to you!]

For such, Little One, a half-wild half-saved universe our nature is adapted. The deepest thing in our nature is this dumb region of the heart in which we dwell alone with our willingnesses and our unwillingnesses, our faiths and our fears. As through the cracks and crannies of caverns those waters exude from the earth's bosom which then form the fountain-heads of springs, so in these crepuscular depths of personality the sources of all our outer deeds and decisions take their rise.

Here is our deepest organ of communication with the nature of things; and compared with these concrete movements of our soul all abstract statements and scientific arguments — the veto, for example, which the strict positivist pronounces upon our faith — sound to us like mere chatterings of the teeth.

You understand none of this, naturally, and yet like a crane calling from the shade for its lost wee ones, I too make appeal to the metaphysical height in your stubborn rockness …

[Martin Peter Clarke]

These thoughts so common now were as common then except that most were kept secret.

You must be right, you are right I'm sure, I am an utter mediocrity. The principle of that, of uniformitarianism, must have applied for thousands of years. And yet... even Wordsworth did not go as far as I.

The monstrous truth that human love is superior to God's is not dialectically matched by the supposition of another and better world.

There is no warrant for that supposition. Apart from the Anselm's 1000 year fallacy.

And nobody that I can see, not Dostoevsky, not Gerard Manley Hopkins, not Simone Weil, in my superficiality, and certainly no new atheist, none at all since Nietzsche, has refuted the Church's claim that God is love. That that absurd claim is denied by reality. By suffering. Even if we only look at the nice bits of the Bible.

I suggest, in all absurd humility, that I am the first to do so in human history.

You read it here first.

But Martin,

(a) God is not human love.

(b) 'God is love' means 'God is existence not nothingness'..

(c) I am pantheist

(d) so I don't insert any intentions into Nature,

(e) whereas theists differ from pantheists by their inserting intention into Nature.

(f) I wrote "inserting" partly because the metaphor explains the masculinity of God.

(a) No, He's not that good.

(b) If you say so. That's your personal metaphor. It doesn't transfer.

(c) is refuted by (d).

(e) No they don't.

(f) I'm sorry?!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

It's sad. I'm going to have to Foe three more people here who are just too lost.

[Dubious]

I suggest, in all absurd humility, that I am the first to do so in human history.

Unquestionably you are right! I'm not about to give myself a mental hernia by any further cross-examination in which I would only end up a loser...I, who was never first in anything!

However, I feel compelled to say, I don't understand what this refers to...
You must be right, you are right I'm sure, I am an utter mediocrity!

In all fairness, it is I, the less learned, the less talented, who must yield to an I.Q. at least 75 and a half points above my own.

Oh woe, when will I ever cease to argue with my superiors!??

I must descend to a much lower level for any probability of future victories in the art of argumentation...which begs the question, is IC still available!?

[seeds]

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.

Come on now, Belinda, it was indeed a metaphor that suggests that the (fetus-to-parent) relationship that we once had with our mother when we were momentarily encapsulated within her womb,...

(with our material body being Immersed, surrounded, and literally created from the living fabric of her very being)

...is (metaphorically speaking) the exact same relationship that our eternal souls have with the greater SOUL of this universe.

For, just as in the case of our human mother, our (yet to be fully born) eternal souls (minds with accompanying "agents"/"I Am-nesses") are momentarily immersed, surrounded, and literally created from the living fabric of God's very being.

Why do you think Christian metaphysics (as archaic and limited as it may be) insists that a human must experience "two births" (one of water, and one of the spirit) in order to awaken (be "delivered") into the higher context of reality that resides above and outside of this lower context of reality?

My contention is the baby in the womb scenario illustrates immanence of the mother not transcendence of the mother.

If you were being more open to the metaphor's obvious implications, then you would realize that it illustrates both.

For clearly, the baby (the fetus) is literally surrounded and immersed within the living fabric of its mother's being, which is representative of the mother's pure and total immanence,...

...while the mother's higher level of consciousness and surroundings transcend that of the fetus' level of consciousness and surroundings.

And that's because, in truth, the mother's living conditions, true outer appearance, and, again, higher level of consciousness are situated (presented/playing out) in a context of reality that resides above and outside of her womb.

In other words, the mother has awakened into - and is functioning in - a higher (transcendent) context of reality (and consciousness) of which the fetus is yet to be born into,...

...while at the same time still being wholly immanent to the fetus by reason of the fact that, again, the fetus is completely immersed within - and surrounded by - the living fabric of the mother's very being.

And the point is that the same thing loosely describes God's transcendent status relative to us.

Detachment from the placenta is not definitive of separation from the mother .

Wrong, it is most definitely definitive of separation from the mother.

And it (the baby's mind/I Am-ness/soul) has one more "placenta" (the human body) to detach from in order to experience its second and final birth and thus awaken into the higher context of reality where its true (and eternal) form (the same form as God) will finally be revealed.

Unless a newborn is fostered he will die without his mother.

The body will die, but not the eternal soul.

That's why abortion is such a tragedy, for it negates the manifestation and emergence of a new eternal soul into existence.

And that's because in order for a new soul to be formed out of the fabric of God's living essence, it (the soul) must undergo the process of the first birth (of water).

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.

And I am the sort of philosopher who sees the human neuroscientist and the human psychologist as being the metaphorical equivalent of two amoebas in a drop of water who are utterly clueless as to how they and the drop of water came into existence.

I am the sort of philosopher who believes, concerning living animal systems, that mind cannot exist without body and body cannot exist without mind.

Yes, the inability to fathom how mind could exist without a material body is a problem for those who are not awake enough to realize that the entire universe is one great mind, and that the stuff from which material bodies are formed is "mind-stuff."

The bottom line is that the vast majority of humans are under the thrall of an "illusion" that is so perfectly designed and executed that it fools them into believing that it somehow created itself by accident.

It's simply a demonstration of how the "Master Artist" has managed to purposely hide her brushstrokes.

I believe that quantity and quality of brainmind varies among species.

Yes.

And once the quantity and quality of "brain-mind" reaches a certain level, it crosses a threshold and joins (becomes a member of) the highest species of being in all of reality - the same species of being as God.

"...And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." -- KJV

Funnily enough, what I am suggesting is pretty much what "Christianity" is suggesting in its extremely roundabout way (as in "...He that hath ears to hear, let him hear..."), otherwise, enjoy the illusion.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

I must descend to a much lower level for any probability of future victories in the art of argumentation...which begs the question, is IC still available!?

After his gruesome crucifixion, he descended in geist to the Lower Realms where he healed and then raised those trapped in the hell-realm he had promised to them. They are all, even as we speak, in a voluptuous process of ascension through “blackness that self-illuminates / night with its midnight-minting fragrances”.

Who’d have guessed?!

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

The negation of negation is a positive. (Intuitive logic/multiplication of negatives in math).

Negation is a continual process within reality as evidenced by time and change. A metaphysics of change requires negation, change is time.

Christianity observes this nature of negation metaphysics.

What doesn't?

That is the point...what doesn't. The metaphysics of christianity is an interpretation that is interwoven within the fabric of things.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

You are confusing assertions with logic, an assertion is the manifestation of distinctions...the foundations of logic and the framework by which logic occurs is purely distinction observance.

You confuse confusion with confusion.

The confusion of confusion is the cessation of it.

[Dubious]

I must descend to a much lower level for any probability of future victories in the art of argumentation...which begs the question, is IC still available!?

After his gruesome crucifixion, he descended in geist to the Lower Realms where he healed and then raised those trapped in the hell-realm he had promised to them. They are all, even as we speak, in a voluptuous process of ascension through “blackness that self-illuminates / night with its midnight-minting fragrances”.

Who’d have guessed?!

Sounds like some gruesome Santa Claus parade who deals in the transportation of souls!

[Belinda]

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.

Come on now, Belinda, it was indeed a metaphor that suggests that the (fetus-to-parent) relationship that we once had with our mother when we were momentarily encapsulated within her womb,...

(with our material body being Immersed, surrounded, and literally created from the living fabric of her very being)

...is (metaphorically speaking) the exact same relationship that our eternal souls have with the greater SOUL of this universe.

For, just as in the case of our human mother, our (yet to be fully born) eternal souls (minds with accompanying "agents"/"I Am-nesses") are momentarily immersed, surrounded, and literally created from the living fabric of God's very being.

Why do you think Christian metaphysics (as archaic and limited as it may be) insists that a human must experience "two births" (one of water, and one of the spirit) in order to awaken (be "delivered") into the higher context of reality that resides above and outside of this lower context of reality?

My contention is the baby in the womb scenario illustrates immanence of the mother not transcendence of the mother.

If you were being more open to the metaphor's obvious implications, then you would realize that it illustrates both.

For clearly, the baby (the fetus) is literally surrounded and immersed within the living fabric of its mother's being, which is representative of the mother's pure and total immanence,...

...while the mother's higher level of consciousness and surroundings transcend that of the fetus' level of consciousness and surroundings.

And that's because, in truth, the mother's living conditions, true outer appearance, and, again, higher level of consciousness are situated (presented/playing out) in a context of reality that resides above and outside of her womb.

In other words, the mother has awakened into - and is functioning in - a higher (transcendent) context of reality (and consciousness) of which the fetus is yet to be born into,...

...while at the same time still being wholly immanent to the fetus by reason of the fact that, again, the fetus is completely immersed within - and surrounded by - the living fabric of the mother's very being.

And the point is that the same thing loosely describes God's transcendent status relative to us.

Detachment from the placenta is not definitive of separation from the mother .

Wrong, it is most definitely definitive of separation from the mother.

And it (the baby's mind/I Am-ness/soul) has one more "placenta" (the human body) to detach from in order to experience its second and final birth and thus awaken into the higher context of reality where its true (and eternal) form (the same form as God) will finally be revealed.

Unless a newborn is fostered he will die without his mother.

The body will die, but not the eternal soul.

That's why abortion is such a tragedy, for it negates the manifestation and emergence of a new eternal soul into existence.

And that's because in order for a new soul to be formed out of the fabric of God's living essence, it (the soul) must undergo the process of the first birth (of water).

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.

And I am the sort of philosopher who sees the human neuroscientist and the human psychologist as being the metaphorical equivalent of two amoebas in a drop of water who are utterly clueless as to how they and the drop of water came into existence.

I am the sort of philosopher who believes, concerning living animal systems, that mind cannot exist without body and body cannot exist without mind.

Yes, the inability to fathom how mind could exist without a material body is a problem for those who are not awake enough to realize that the entire universe is one great mind, and that the stuff from which material bodies are formed is "mind-stuff."

The bottom line is that the vast majority of humans are under the thrall of an "illusion" that is so perfectly designed and executed that it fools them into believing that it somehow created itself by accident.

It's simply a demonstration of how the "Master Artist" has managed to purposely hide her brushstrokes.

I believe that quantity and quality of brainmind varies among species.

Yes.

And once the quantity and quality of "brain-mind" reaches a certain level, it crosses a threshold and joins (becomes a member of) the highest species of being in all of reality - the same species of being as God.

"...And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." -- KJV

Funnily enough, what I am suggesting is pretty much what "Christianity" is suggesting in its extremely roundabout way (as in "...He that hath ears to hear, let him hear..."), otherwise, enjoy the illusion.
_______

I concede the baby in the womb scenario is an apt metaphor for the human mind within God's greater mind.

I agree, if I may paraphrase you, that Christianity rests on the Cartesian theory that body and mind are separate and separable substances. And that God is separate from (i.e. transcends) both body and mind. I am not a Christian as my God is wholly and solely immanent.

"And once the quantity and quality of "brain-mind" reaches a certain level, it crosses a threshold and joins (becomes a member of) the highest species of being in all of reality - the same species of being as God."
You wrote.

I do actually enjoy the theory of existence that there is something of living systems that is immortal or transcends death. That theory of existence holds that what is immortal is ,precisely , experience.

Seeds wrote:

(with our material body being Immersed, surrounded, and literally created from the living fabric of her very being)

...is (metaphorically speaking) the exact same relationship that our eternal souls have with the greater SOUL of this universe.

That is panentheism.
I may take issue with you over what you call "soul". Sometimes you seem to refer to what is more precisely ego-self, and sometimes you refer to soul as that which survives bodily death. The Abrahamic God is an ego-self , as compared with the more austere Platonic good, truth, and beauty triad. The distinction is crucial , as your theory of transcendence of God rests on the Abrahamic, not the Platonic, God.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I suggest, in all absurd humility, that I am the first to do so in human history.

Unquestionably you are right! I'm not about to give myself a mental hernia by any further cross-examination in which I would only end up a loser...I, who was never first in anything!

However, I feel compelled to say, I don't understand what this refers to...
You must be right, you are right I'm sure, I am an utter mediocrity!

In all fairness, it is I, the less learned, the less talented, who must yield to an I.Q. at least 75 and a half points above my own.

Oh woe, when will I ever cease to argue with my superiors!??

I must descend to a much lower level for any probability of future victories in the art of argumentation...which begs the question, is IC still available!?

Dubious. You ain't on the list. As I'm wee-wee end of the Mensa pool, you'd have an IQ of way less than an Alsatian. I am just old and dim but bloody dogged. I can give you my constrained attention, not the latest three Foed.

[Belinda]

I suggest, in all absurd humility, that I am the first to do so in human history.

Unquestionably you are right! I'm not about to give myself a mental hernia by any further cross-examination in which I would only end up a loser...I, who was never first in anything!

However, I feel compelled to say, I don't understand what this refers to...
You must be right, you are right I'm sure, I am an utter mediocrity!

In all fairness, it is I, the less learned, the less talented, who must yield to an I.Q. at least 75 and a half points above my own.

Oh woe, when will I ever cease to argue with my superiors!??

I must descend to a much lower level for any probability of future victories in the art of argumentation...which begs the question, is IC still available!?

Dubious. You ain't on the list. As I'm wee-wee end of the Mensa pool, you'd have an IQ of way less than an Alsatian. I am just old and dim but bloody dogged. I can give you my constrained attention, not the latest three Foed.

Does one get Mensa MOT's?

[Dubious]

I suggest, in all absurd humility, that I am the first to do so in human history.

Unquestionably you are right! I'm not about to give myself a mental hernia by any further cross-examination in which I would only end up a loser...I, who was never first in anything!

However, I feel compelled to say, I don't understand what this refers to...
You must be right, you are right I'm sure, I am an utter mediocrity!

In all fairness, it is I, the less learned, the less talented, who must yield to an I.Q. at least 75 and a half points above my own.

Oh woe, when will I ever cease to argue with my superiors!??

I must descend to a much lower level for any probability of future victories in the art of argumentation...which begs the question, is IC still available!?

Dubious. You ain't on the list. As I'm wee-wee end of the Mensa pool, you'd have an IQ of way less than an Alsatian. I am just old and dim but bloody dogged. I can give you my constrained attention, not the latest three Foed.

Thank you! Nevertheless, I must endeavour to constrain myself from epic verbal confrontations with my superiors knowing well how it's going to end!

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Unquestionably you are right! I'm not about to give myself a mental hernia by any further cross-examination in which I would only end up a loser...I, who was never first in anything!

However, I feel compelled to say, I don't understand what this refers to...
You must be right, you are right I'm sure, I am an utter mediocrity!

In all fairness, it is I, the less learned, the less talented, who must yield to an I.Q. at least 75 and a half points above my own.

Oh woe, when will I ever cease to argue with my superiors!??

I must descend to a much lower level for any probability of future victories in the art of argumentation...which begs the question, is IC still available!?

Dubious. You ain't on the list. As I'm wee-wee end of the Mensa pool, you'd have an IQ of way less than an Alsatian. I am just old and dim but bloody dogged. I can give you my constrained attention, not the latest three Foed.

Thank you! Nevertheless, I must endeavour to constrain myself from epic verbal confrontations with my superiors knowing well how it's going to end!

Bugger me Dubious! We're not in sodding conflict! Carry on that man. Say owt yer like.