Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Power, pure and arbitrary, is all Secularism can employ in that realm.

This issue — that of the reduction of choices and plans to quests established by will and by power, for power’s purposes, is not a minor issue.

If it ever did become possible for any group of men to have ultimate power and control over all men, that possibility would be grasped.

You’ve added an unnecessary condition here. You added “ultimate control.” Nobody suggests that Secularists won’t employ any power to enforce their moralities unless they also have “ultimate control over all men.” As the Secular regimes in Russia or China clearly display, they’ll use power anyway. They can’t do anything else, since Secularism HAS nothing else to offer on the subject of morality.

So a Secularist has only two roads: give up on any thought of morality, or find some way to enforce that in which the Secularist himself is unable to really believe…if he’s rational, which most Secularists are not, because most Secularists would still like to be moral, and recognize their need of morality, even though everything in their worldview denies any objectivity to their hopes.

And what next?

That’s up to the Secularist. He can be amoral, or he can become a propagandist or tyrant, advocating that which he, himself, has to imagine is unreal. And if he does, he’s going to be using power, not morality, to get the job done.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So a Secularist has only two roads: give up on any thought of morality, or find some way to enforce that in which the Secularist himself is unable to really believe…if he’s rational, which most Secularists are not, because most Secularists would still like to be moral, and recognize their need of morality, even though everything in their worldview denies any objectivity to their hopes.

There is no viable alternative, dearest Immanuel, to what you call “secularism”. There is no body on the planet today that has the authority to perform as God’s arbiter. The nearest possible entity is the RCC (and maybe EOC) but no agency or authority has the power to carry through.

So, secularism and secularists will decide all such questions. How they do that, and how they navigate a post-religiously defined moral set, is being shown now. It is being done now.

Whether you like it, approve, disapprove, feel it ultimately impossible or unworkable or anything else.

It is however FALSE to say that you or anyone has no other option except that of giving up on deciding moral questions. They will go on grappling just as they are now, my child.

What they (and all of us, including you) have a problem with is Ultimate Absolute Morals. There is no ultimate source and so that leaves us with provisional sources.

[Atla]

Excellent, Atla! Now let's continue with the matters at hand ...

I'll leave you to your matters.

[Immanuel Can]

So a Secularist has only two roads: give up on any thought of morality, or find some way to enforce that in which the Secularist himself is unable to really believe…if he’s rational, which most Secularists are not, because most Secularists would still like to be moral, and recognize their need of morality, even though everything in their worldview denies any objectivity to their hopes.

There is no viable alternative, dearest Immanuel, to what you call “secularism”.

Then the conclusion is obvious: there’s no such thing as morality either.

But we can’t live, organize our societies, or just “get over” the need for morality. So we’re in a dilly of a pickle: we can’t afford to be Secularists, and can’t bring ourselves not to be.

Well, except for about 96% of the world, who contrary to Secularists, believe that God could at least potentially exist. But I suppose you must be ignoring them.

So, secularism and secularists will decide all such questions. How they do that, and how they navigate a post-religiously defined moral set, is being shown now. It is being done now.

Yes. As it was done in Maoist China and Stalinist Russia. It is quite possible…indeed, normal, for an anti-God polity to employ force, and of the most extreme and immoral kind.

But so what?

There is no ultimate source and so that leaves us with provisional sources.

Tell me about that. What “provisional sources” do you think can ground a Secular polity in moral precepts?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

No prawn cocktails now! But rape and pillage, killing babies, that's OK, Except on Saturday! That's right out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'll leave you to your matters.

When I desire your presence I will summon you. Meanwhile goest thou in peace, child.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But we can’t live, organize our societies, or just “get over” the need for morality. So we’re in a dilly of a pickle: we can’t afford to be Secularists, and can’t bring ourselves not to be.

Well, except for about 96% of the world, who contrary to Secularists, believe that God could at least potentially exist. But I suppose you must be ignoring them.

We have no choice but to be secularists. That is, people who decide on the terms of morality. There is no Supernatural Authority that can be invoked to give answer.

It is that simple, my wondrous, struggling boy.

I grant you that there are many people (I am surrounded by them here in South America) who attend churches and have “belief”. But it is ultra-fragile. Extremely provisional. That area of liminal belief is quite interesting. But it is another topic.

The entire world is effectively secularist. As indeed you are.

I definitely believe “god exists” but all of that takes place internally. It has very few points of connection to the reigning secularism.

I am one in whom god-belief recoiled back into my own self. Thwarted exteriorly, the only domain left is interior.

I’ve been writing about this, moron, but you cannot hear any of it.

For you, “faith” is superstition. You’d take superstitious pseudo-spirituality over a level-headed genuine and mature realism.

[Atla]

I'll leave you to your matters.

When I desire your presence I will summon you. Meanwhile goest thou in peace, child.

Okay though I care little for what a dumb schizo desires.

[Belinda]

Perhaps "analogy" might also be fitting.

All that matters is that all parties understand the actual point being made.


No way.

Science (materialism), which relies on the "chance hypothesis," is total crap when it comes to explaining how the unfathomable order of the universe came about.


The mind is the living spatial "arena" in which the immortal soul's (the I Am-ness's") personal mental phenomena is created, staged, and developed.

As you stand on the earth and look out into the universe, you are witnessing - (from a "fetal-like" perspective) - the fully-fruitioned, fully-developed, fully-matured (adult) version of a mind just like our own mind.

Indeed, if you click on the following link,...

https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA

...it will take you to a clip of me on YouTube where I attempt to offer some scientific support of my theory of how our minds are literally encapsulated within the mental fabric of the fully-evolved higher mind mentioned above. The video clip is a brief excerpt taken from one of the episodes of my public access television lecture series that aired for 7 years in Grand Rapids, Michigan back in the 90s.

Anyway, getting back to your question,...

"...Is immortal soul the same substance as mind?..."

...I suggest that it's more metaphysically logical to think of the two (mind and the owner of the mind) as being comprised of something that is more akin to Spinoza's "oneness" substance, which is a substance that represents the singular foundational essence from which all of reality is created.


Yes!


Is your mother literally composed of you and (assuming you have some) your siblings?

Come on, Belinda, when it comes to the "organic (mammalian-like) naturalness" of our familial relationship to God, try to fathom the true meaning of the Hermetic axiom:

"As Below, So Above."

In other words (and with a few minor differences), even in the highest context of reality, members of the highest species of being in all of existence replicate themselves (give birth to their own offspring) similar to how it is done in this lower context of reality.


Needless to say, this is all just speculation,...

...but, yes, it stands to reason that the immortal soul possesses some sort of inexplicable anatomy and physiology (inexplicable from our present perspective) that has its being (its form and functionality) in a higher context of reality that somehow renders it capable of lasting forever.


Clearly, we won't know for certain until it is revealed to us after crossing the threshold of death.

However, and at the risk of sounding like a lunatic,...

(though I'm pretty sure that that ship has already sailed a long time ago )

...I personally have already been shown that God exists and is indeed a "mental" (incorporeal) entity as was chronicled in the thread at this link:

viewtopic.php?p=685773#p685773
.

As opposed to what?

Imagine having eternal life without being able to feel anything such as joy, or happiness, or bliss.

Sounds like some kind of hell to me.


Show me a quote where Plato referred to the eternal soul as being nothing more than "reason."

What does that even mean?


"Eternal" in the context we are discussing is just a reference to the immortal soul's infinitely long (never-ending) existence - as in forever alive, and conscious, and forever evolving.


I'm sorry, Belinda, but this line,...

"...The ego self dies; but experience, which had necessarily happened as it did, continues necessary and so cannot become nothing..."

...makes absolutely no sense to me.


Well, seeing how you've already made it clear to me that you think my diagrams are horrible, I wouldn't dream of asking you to view the one that resides in the link I provided above, even though I personally think it is an almost perfect depiction of the concept of panentheism.

Indeed, it is the first image you see on my website at this link:

http://www.theultimateseeds.com/

However, with that being said, I would love for you to at least describe for me what your "diagram" of panentheism would look like.


Fair enough.

Now, if you just explain to me how this abstract notion of "Being" managed to create the unfathomable order of the universe, then we'll see if it makes any sense.
_______

Seeds wrote(excerpt from larger post ^^above^^):

The mind is the living spatial "arena" in which the immortal soul's (the I Am-ness's") personal mental phenomena is created, staged, and developed.

But mind is not spatial; mind can't be measured in spatial terms such as square miles, or cubic centimetres.

It seems clear to me, Belinda, that you didn't watch my video lecture excerpt on YouTube. Is that a correct assumption?

Or, if you did, you certainly didn't understand it.

You keep missing the core meaning of my theory in that because we humans are still in a "fetal-like" stage of our being and are not yet fully born...

(a process that can only be completed via our "second birth" through the event that we know as physical death)

...we have thus not yet awakened into full consciousness of our minds and into the full awareness of what we truly are.

I realize that what I am proposing is extremely difficult to believe,...

...however, what humans cannot yet fully grasp due to, again, the "fetal-like" (semi-conscious) state of our present level of being, is that as the literal offspring (children/progeny) of the Creator of this universe, we have each been imbued with the same potential and abilities as the universe's Creator.

And to point out that I am not digressing from the topic of this thread, what I have suggested above is what I believe are the core implications of Christianity.

However, it is obvious that Christianity's doctrines merely "hinted" at what I am now boldly declaring, and was more in line with what humans were ready to receive a few thousand years ago.

Indeed, humans are barely ready for the truth now, but it seems the time has come for a more unifying (and logical) vision of what "God" truly is, otherwise the fractious state of the divergent religions of the world is about to destroy the world order we've managed to achieve thus far.

Anyway, getting back to this,...

But mind is not spatial; mind can't be measured in spatial terms such as square miles, or cubic centimetres.

...the point is that once we awaken into the "full consciousness" of our minds and acquire full awareness and full control over our mental holography,...

(again, after experiencing our second [and final] birth via death)

...it is then when we will be able to willfully assign spatial parameters* (as in permanent and measurable aspects) to whatever we create within our own minds.

*("Relative" spatial parameters - see my video lecture.)

In other words, post death, everything we see, feel, hear, smell, and taste within, again, the "spatial arena" of our own personal mind will appear to us (appear to our "I Am-ness") in precisely the same way that the phenomenal features of this present universe (our birth universe) appear to the fully matured "I AM-NESS" that created it,...

...which, in turn, enabled her to give birth to us (her literal offspring).

Also, mental phenomena are no more no less than mind, "mental phenomena" are what mind is defined as.

Why can't you fathom the fact that there is a profound difference between the 3-D phenomenal structures of a dream and that of the "dreamer" of the dream?

You simply cannot place them both under the same heading of "mind" without pointing out the clear distinction between the two.

And that's because the owner of the mind (the "I Am-ness") cannot (or should not) be placed in the same category as "mental phenomena" which is more befitting of the image of a red apple that just appeared before your mind's eye at the mere mention of the words "red" and "apple."

The I Am-ness, the feeling of being a self, does not survive death. This we know...

"...This we know..."??? "...This we know..."?????
Come on now, Belinda, even I at least have the "humility" to admit that my theory of the afterlife could be wrong.

Where's yours?

This we know because the feeling of being a self is a feeling no individual can live without unless she is economically and materially supported by others for instance in intensive care in a hospital.Or indeed as a foetus or a newborn entirely supported by her mother.

Please, Belinda, I beseech you to please read my little soap opera - "Oh the Irony" - at this link...

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

...for you (and, of course, you're not the only one) are the living, breathing epitome (poster child) of "Twin Number Two" in the story.

I had a look at your diagram of panentheism. Your diagram goes beyond panentheism as the eye within the circumference seems to me to stand for the creation's becoming able to reflect nature.

The only thing that the "eye" in the diagram "reflects" (is meant to represent) is the incorporeal, yet living, conscious, self-aware locus/SOUL ("I Am-ness") of the universe whose living essence not only infuses (saturates) the very fabric of the entirety of the stars, and planets, and galaxies (including our bodies and the very space in between those objects),...

...but also exists above and outside of said fabric.

And that would be in the exact same way that your own "I Am-ness" exists above and outside of the fabric of your own thoughts and dreams, yet subsumes your thoughts and dreams within the makeup of your singular and autonomous being.

In other words, just as the phenomenal features of your own thoughts and dreams are created from your very being and are infused with your own personal life essence, and would not exist if your "I Am-ness" (soul/mind/consciousness) did not exist,...

...likewise, the same applies to the suns, and planets, and galaxies of this universe, none of which would exist if God's "I Am-ness" (mind/soul/consciousness) did not exist.

The bottom line is that the "circumference" you referenced in my diagram is simply a metaphorical representation of the outer boundary of the totality of God's being.

And that would be in the same way (as the metaphor implies) that the outer "rind" wall (or green skin) of a watermelon represents the outer boundary of the totality of one singular (fully-fruitioned) watermelon that just so happens to be pregnant with the "seeds" of itself.

That's why I call us humans the "Ultimate Seeds" in all of existence, which is also implied in the diagram.

I just don't know how I can make a visual metaphor of panentheism and of how "natural" and "organic" our status is relative to God, any clearer than what that simple little "watermelon-like" diagram suggests.

Stop complicating the diagram's organic simplicity with some sort of abstract interpretation of its meaning.

There's a great deal more worth thinking about in your post but this is enough for me at a go.

If there's a great deal more worth thinking about in my earlier post (which is quoted at the top of this post), then hop to it, Belinda, and let's think about these things together.
_______

I wrote reply to yours above ,but it has disappeared, So I will reply again.

My reply concerns panentheism.
Spinoza explained existence as two aspects of the same. We can view existence from the point of view of eternity or from the point of view of this temporal, relative and fractured life.
Eternity encases ordinary fractured experience . A metaphor that you may like is of a river(Eternity) and each leaf or speck of floating debris on the river 's surface is a life event among infinitely many separate events. One can view the river as a whole , or one can view the river as tiny parts of a whole system.

Spinoza I paraphrase: Natura Naturans is Nature as a whole system ,and Natura Naturata are all the separate things or events of Nature.This is easy to transpose into God-language: God is a whole system, and all the separate events and things of the world are God viewed , not as a whole , but as a multitude

I did read the long link that you kindly provided. I am sympathetic to anecdotal evidence, and have no doubt you experienced what you said you did.( You must know you are not the only one to have a similar experience.} However your interpretation of the experience was biased towards a particular culture of beliefs notably Biblical imagery, and Biblical lexicon.

As for the value of your experience together with your interpretation, I can't see that it's practically any better or any worse than any other religious or spiritual system. Can you spell that out for me please?

I can understand the value to you personally of the psychedelic experience. It obviously did you psychological good.

[Immanuel Can]

But we can’t live, organize our societies, or just “get over” the need for morality. So we’re in a dilly of a pickle: we can’t afford to be Secularists, and can’t bring ourselves not to be.

Well, except for about 96% of the world, who contrary to Secularists, believe that God could at least potentially exist. But I suppose you must be ignoring them.

We have no choice but to be secularists.

Sure, you do. You just choose not to take it, that’s all.

That is, people who decide on the terms of morality.

But it’s going to have to be arbitrarily, by your own admission, and thus power is all you’ve got to back it. No reasons. No objective truths. Nothing.

This is why Secularism cannot build anything positive, but can only be negative. A Secularist can tell you what he thinks you are NOT allowed to believe, but can’t tell you even one thing about how to built a morality that can ground a polity, or a justice system, or interpersonal relations, or even one’s own moral knowledge.

And this is why you never answer my question about what moral precept Secularism can require of us. Nor can any other Secularist, it seems. And that silence is a deafening roar.

The entire world is effectively secularist. As indeed you are.

Um…are you really going to make statements that have NO basis whatsoever in reality, and expect people not to notice?

[Belinda]

But we can’t live, organize our societies, or just “get over” the need for morality. So we’re in a dilly of a pickle: we can’t afford to be Secularists, and can’t bring ourselves not to be.

Well, except for about 96% of the world, who contrary to Secularists, believe that God could at least potentially exist. But I suppose you must be ignoring them.

We have no choice but to be secularists.

Sure, you do. You just choose not to take it, that’s all.

That is, people who decide on the terms of morality.

But it’s going to have to be arbitrarily, by your own admission, and thus power is all you’ve got to back it. No reasons. No objective truths. Nothing.

This is why Secularism cannot build anything positive, but can only be negative. A Secularist can tell you what he thinks you are NOT allowed to believe, but can’t tell you even one thing about how to built a morality that can ground a polity, or a justice system, or interpersonal relations, or even one’s own moral knowledge.

And this is why you never answer my question about what moral precept Secularism can require of us. Nor can any other Secularist, it seems. And that silence is a deafening roar.

The entire world is effectively secularist. As indeed you are.

Um…are you really going to make statements that have NO basis whatsoever in reality, and expect people not to notice?

Do you think it possible to 'believe in God' without believing all the myths in The Bible? I invite a nuanced reply.

[Immanuel Can]

We have no choice but to be secularists.

Sure, you do. You just choose not to take it, that’s all.

That is, people who decide on the terms of morality.

But it’s going to have to be arbitrarily, by your own admission, and thus power is all you’ve got to back it. No reasons. No objective truths. Nothing.

This is why Secularism cannot build anything positive, but can only be negative. A Secularist can tell you what he thinks you are NOT allowed to believe, but can’t tell you even one thing about how to built a morality that can ground a polity, or a justice system, or interpersonal relations, or even one’s own moral knowledge.

And this is why you never answer my question about what moral precept Secularism can require of us. Nor can any other Secularist, it seems. And that silence is a deafening roar.

The entire world is effectively secularist. As indeed you are.

Um…are you really going to make statements that have NO basis whatsoever in reality, and expect people not to notice?

Do you think it possible to 'believe in God' without believing all the myths in The Bible? I invite a nuanced reply.

To get a nuanced reply, you’ll have to ask a nuanced question, one in which the “myths” in question were defined. But Theism is a very broad category, of which Biblical Christianity is one variant: so the obvious answer is, yes, one can believe in some kind of god without it being the Biblical description of God. You could believe in Moloch, or Baal, or Zeus, or Odin, or Ahura Mazda, or Allah, or any other of many, many gods.

But is this just an effort to get away from the Secular dilemma? Is it just a distractor? Or does it have some relevance to the present debate?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sure, you do. You just choose not to take it, that’s all.

Unfortunately for you, you are just not very bright Immanuel. I think this aspect of you baffles many people. You have at your fingertips a great deal of information, this is certain, and some familiarity with the Culture Wars and the theological crisis, but you are completely unable to understand that I tell you that I myself am not an atheist like many you encounter here. God only knows what inhibits you from understanding such a basic thing. If I said that I "absolutely reject" the Christian Story (i.e. a rendition of a theological picture) that would be wrong. Because the System that is your brand of Christian Theology is simply put just one of a variety of Theological Pictures.

I fall back -- I make this very clear -- to a manoeuvre which involves seeing, understanding and appreciating metaphysical truths, an understanding that allows me to allow the Picture to dissolve. As the resident pea-brain I gather this idea is too hard for you. What a shame.

I illustrated my point ages ago. I asked you to understand the principles that operate in Christianity and to try to imagine how these ideas and imperatives there would be communicated to a being from an entirely different world. That is, one not from the Earth but existing in the manifest universe. How? By way of Logos. And I do mean Logos in the Greek-Christian sense.

This notion causes your overstressed synapses to short out. You cannot grasp the underlying principle.

You are stuck in an absolutist story. That is to say when it is understood that you are a biblical literalist. As a bible literalist you show up in your sickness here all the time. That is your primary shtick. I say 'sickness' because I wish to be accurate and fair. It is not an insult. But since you believe in biblical fables and cannot see through them with a critical eye of realism, it muddles your thinking. And there you are stuck. But take some comfort in the fact that you are not alone! Our minds in so many senses are warped. Our interpreting mechanisms are under tremendous stresses.

To see how your mind works I need only refer to your odd amalgamation of the Adam & Eve fable with your loco-beans interpretation that the story pictures "the original mating pair". You amalgamate incompatible epistemes. Your realism forces you to this. And it warps your thinking.

What I choose 'not to take' is you and people who think like you do. Warped thinkers. People who are trapped in Story. People who, like you, turn your theological communication into personalized battles against 'your enemies'. You are surrounded by 'enemies' and you have not one friend.

In our world -- the mutable world that is unstable and constantly shifting -- we can conceive of Absolutes. But in our mutability, our relativism, we cannot manifest absolutist postures. Do you, you chicken brain, do you get this? You can refer to an Absolute Authority, and you can, if you wish, believe in it. There is utility in absolute conviction. But you can only achieve agreement with those who have made the same intellectual choice as you have. Or perhaps simply an emotional choice. (It is a blend actually).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you think it possible to 'believe in God' without believing all the myths in The Bible? I invite a nuanced reply.

This is a necessary question. But you must know that IC can only answer one way (which he did): All other god-concepts are merely hollow names. There is no other god but that referenced in the Bible. All other gods are (according to strict Hebrew concepts) demons. And the Gentiles are possessed by demons. This is actually the core of the belief-system. I am not making this up.

Ultimately, the dismantling of the Christian god-concept must also dismantle the Judaic god-concept.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You know it makes sense.