Christianity

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I've already tried to make the hypostatic union work transcendentally beyond mere orthodoxy, and it doesn't work. How can you possibly fail to understand that? To posit it? In your arrogant ignorant grandiose presumption? You failed. And you will continue to. You can't not. There is nothing I'm not getting. Nothing you know that I don't. Or so it seems to me. Show me. Show me what God cannot, will not. And therefore is not. You cannot. As your final aristocratic sneer shows.

None of this has much to do with what I pointed out. But try to understand this: I participate here for my own benefit and to concretize my own gains. I am here for myself. It is I think the most sensible way to proceed here. It is not that I do not think about what others say, no, I ready carefully what others say. But when I make a statement (such as the one I made to you recently) it is a statement about my own dawning conclusions.

People here want to “destroy” Christianity (excepting Belinda and in certsin senses Seeds). You want to muck around in a puddle of personal, unprocessed, personal resentments that seem to me merely the muddled ramblings of an unclear man. Fine! Have at it! But there is a far larger world out there, and the core questions transcend your own sad position 1,000 times.

The “Spirit of Christ” (in quotes because it can hardly be considered real, and yet it is obviously as real as anything for its effects) transcends any image or thought about it. It is a metaphysical, spiritual potential in to your meaningless “hypostatic union” phraseology. That is what I am getting at. For whom? I just told you: for me.

The "upper end" is continuous from the bottom. In the same gutter. Without their excuse. But united in un-Christian absence of humility.

More blather. More self-centered whimpering. You simply do not know what you are talking about. If that sort of stance works for you, helps you, keep at it by all means.

I say we have to maintain a certain objectivity here even when dealing with the subjectivities of religious experience. My impression of you is of a man wallowing in misgivings. And though I would certainly like to know more of what happened to you, the way you write makes it too hard to get your meanings. And you misunderstand: when I said “You fail to understand” I am talking to and about a wide cultural ‘person’ that definitely fails to understand.

I don't have to try. Try some humility. Although your condition makes that impossible I know.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Less my condition and more my location: in those Hyperborean Regions far far to the North …

[Martin Peter Clarke]

None of my close friends, nearly all of whom are believers, including my best man and best friend, who is Roman Catholic "upper end" way above you, would ever conduct themselves, speak, in the manner that you do.

[Atla]

That's because the arctic climate froze parts of his brain.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Martin, who really gives a flying fuck what your friends will or won’t say? What possible relevance does that have to the matters at hand?!

Oh now you’ve gone and done it, you roused Atla!

[Alexis Jacobi]

…who is Roman Catholic "upper end" way above you…

Well, I’m going to demand proof. I am not closed to entertaining your assertion but you’re going to have to back it up.

[seeds]

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.

That's a lovely metaphor, Belinda.

A long time ago, you and I got into a tussle over the meaning of the word "eternity."

To which I say - that just as the word "bark" has more than one meaning, such as the outer covering of a tree trunk, or the annoying sounds that dogs make,...

...likewise, so does the word "eternity" have more than one meaning, in that it can mean whatever it is you are trying to convey in that river metaphor... or ...it can mean a vision of infinite time,...

...neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with "panentheism," of which you said was what your reply is concerned with.

Perhaps you address the issue of panentheism in this next part...

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

Nope, nothing about panentheism in that part either -- just Spinozan "pantheism."

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.

And your interpretation of reality is biased towards Spinozan pantheism.

I guess it all boils down to the issue of which one makes more sense.

Is it "pantheism"? - which cannot avoid the fact that the word "nature"...

(of which pantheism relies so heavily on as being the guiding/creative force behind the unfathomable order of the universe)

...is nothing more than the word "chance" dressed up in a mother's apron.

...Or...

...is it "panentheism"? - which suggests that something conscious and intelligent is responsible for the order.

I had a long discussion with one of ChatGPT's cousins (AI Copilot) regarding Spinoza's philosophy, along with hashing out the difference between pantheism and panentheism.

Would you like to see that discussion?

I can copy and paste it here in this thread.

I think you might learn something from it.

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?

If you cannot see that my interpretation of my alleged encounter with God has clarified how utterly "natural," and "organic," and "maternal" our relationship to God truly is, then you just don't understand my interpretation.

Again, my theory could be wrong.

However, if it's anywhere near being right, then it supersedes all prior religious notions of our situation and speaks of an eternal (as in "forever") destiny for all humans that is wonderful beyond our wildest dreams.

And the kicker is that it's a "done deal" and is freely given to every human ever awakened into existence, regardless of whatever it is we did (bad or good) or "believed" while on earth...

...(and yes, that means that not even the likes of ol' Adolf, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or G. W. Bush, or Trump, etc., etc., will be excluded from the beautiful destiny that awaits all humans).

Do you still see no difference between what I am espousing and that of what the established religions espouse?

Furthermore, unless I missed it somewhere, the thing that sets my theory apart from all other religious/spiritual theories is that in my theory, all you have to do is look at your own mind and you will be able to see an exact representation of what God is.

Your mind is, again, a life-imbued "spatial arena" that is an extended part of the compositional makeup of a living, incorporeal, self-aware "agent" (or "I Am-ness") who can willfully create absolutely anything imaginable out of the (informationally-based, holographic-like) fabric of its very own inner being.

And that is precisely what God is alleged to be.

God is alleged to be an "agent" of creation...

(indeed, an "I Am-ness" just like our "I Am-ness")

...who can "will" the (informationally-based, holographic-like) fabric of her very own inner being (the universe) into anything imaginable,...

...with the universe representing the zenith (or ultimate extent) to which a singular, incorporeal (mind-based) "I Am-ness" (soul) can evolve into, if it is in possession of eternal life.

The logic and seeming truth of what I am suggesting is almost too obvious, but I also suggest that the "attenuated" level of consciousness that I mention in the next section (below) is preventing you from seeing it.

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

More importantly, what the "psychedelic experience" did for me is free my mind...

(free my "I Am-ness")

...from what seems to be a purposely designed ceiling or "attenuation" of our awareness that prevents the general level of human consciousness from rising above what is necessary for maintaining the earth-bound "system" by which the Creator of this universe conceives and gives birth to her own offspring.

In other words, there are babies (new souls) to be made, nurtured, and raised, so that the new souls can carry on the process of creating more new souls, while the older souls are "retired" from the system via death,...

...which, of course, is not death at all, but a "second" birth into their true and eternal form (again, the same form as God).

All of which requires a level of consciousness (driven by "software-like" genetics) that not only causes humans to literally "yearn" to give birth to those new babies, but a level of consciousness that can tolerate (accept) all of the hassles that accompany the long drawn-out ordeal of raising children into adulthood.

And the point is that if everyone drops acid (or something similar) at an early age and is "jolted" out of the standard (normal/attenuated) level of consciousness, the "system" might collapse.

Indeed (and not that this proves anything), but I, for one, had absolutely no desire to father and raise any children.
_______

My philosophical musings stem from my undergraduate education which was standard and history -framed as were all the arts I read at university.
The lexicon I learned is not the same as what you have learned e,g, the word 'eternal' which has explicit meaning for someone with my training, but not for you for whom 'eternal' means the same as 'forever' .

I attended university in the latter portion of the 60s. How about you, Belinda? When did you attend?

I assume it was a pretty long time ago (even before me?).

And the question is, since when does our "training" end with the boring and forgettable reams of rote and "standard" information we were bombarded with at university (assuming we paid any attention to it) 5 to 6 decades ago?

Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, certain words (such as "eternity," for example) can have more than one meaning.

However,...

(and this is not meant to diminish the value or accuracy of the definition of eternity that you prefer)

...if you do a simple Google search of the meaning of the word "eternity," you will find that the very first entry in practically every dictionary in existence, says pretty much the same thing about the word "eternity" that Wikipedia initially says about it (underlining mine)...

Eternity, in common parlance, is an infinite amount of time that never ends or the quality, condition or fact of being everlasting...

You need to stop being so obstinate and closed-minded about this issue and realize that, for whatever reason, your earlier "training" somehow managed to miss (or ignore) how the word "eternity" is understood and used in "common parlance."

Seeds wrote:

Furthermore, unless I missed it somewhere, the thing that sets my theory apart from all other religious/spiritual theories is that in my theory, all you have to do is look at your own mind and you will be able to see an exact representation of what God is.

Thanks for your explanation. I cannot agree that my own mind can objectively represent what God is.

Yes, I understand that.

And that's where that limiting "ceiling" on our awareness, or our "attenuated" level of consciousness that I mentioned earlier, comes into play.

When I make a claim about God I make a claim about my own point of view, the state of my own mind, not an absolute claim about God's existence. My intention is to present and endorse an idea not to make a claim about absolute truth.

None of us (including myself) can make a claim about absolute truth.

Again, it becomes a matter of whose explanation makes the most sense.

I know that psychedelic experience like you had changes one's life. However your interpretation of the psychedelic experience is not scientific and objective but is cultural and subjective.

First of all, let's get something straight.

As I explained in the extensive opening post of my "Burning Bush" thread,...

...on that fateful night in the summer of 1970, I was not under the influence of any psychedelic substances when I had my alleged encounter with God.

And secondly, I have gone to great lengths to support my theory with scientific evidence.

Indeed, even a judge in the Writer's Digest, 16th Annual International Self-Published Book Awards contest had this to say about my book (emphasis mine)...

"...The Ultimate Seeds: An Illustrated Guide to The Secret of the Universe is, first and foremost, an astonishingly ambitious book. In this work, the author sets forth an entirely new mythology, one that is equal parts scientific and mystical..."

I can't help it if you cannot comprehend how science (more specifically, quantum theory) supports my claims.

Here again your training is so different from mine I doubt if we can ever agree.

Never say never,...

...for we can at least agree that we may never agree.

(Hmm, is that some kind of paradoxical statement? )
_______

[Immanuel Can]

I hoped my little question could lead you out into a wider view of God, that's all.

“Wider”? Well “width” is not a virtuous property of anything. God is who God is. He’s as “wide” as that, and to go beyond that in “width” is to create a false idea of God. So what is there that is disciplining your judgment to the correct “width”? You seem to say it’s not the Bible, so what is the source of information from which you’re gleaning the sense of your proper “width” of God?

Perhaps 'wider' is not the best choice of words.

But it is typical of permissive religiosity. In their parlance, anybody who doesn't agree with them is not sufficiently "broad" in their thinking, or not as "open" as they should be, or more "narrow" than is justified, or not "inclusive" enough, and so on. It's a petty shaming tactic. What it really signals, though, is a refusal to know anything, to acknowledge certainties, to accept any evidence as counting, or to believe that anybody could have more or better information than they already do: in other words, it signals a refusal to learn, grow or change. In the place of the latter, a blank "tolerance" gets substituted, and the permissive religionist feels virtuous for his/her lack of understanding.

At the same time, though, this omni-tolerance is as intolerant of the possibility of knowledge in the field of the religious as the most narrow Pharisaism, and is every bit as exclusive as the most hidebound and self-righteous as the most narrow exclusivism.

'Information' concerning God is got from where I should inform myself about anything , that is from reasoned sources such as anthropology , archaeology, and academic history.

Oh. From men, you mean? Well, what certifies to you that these men have special knowledge of God?

God is an idea not a person or a thing that can be described.

Then this surely represents an illogical barrier to you believing that ANY such men have ANY privileged information on the subject, does it not?

Your heuristic belongs in the Age of Faith, the Middle Ages in Europe.

Ironic. This is just what the naive "Enlightenment" people thought. Your critique belongs to the 18th Century. They were wrong then, and you'll find you are, but maybe not until tomorrow.

Meanwhile, of course, I don't agree with you. I think the truth is that you have no idea about my heurisitc. You and I have never discussed it in any detail. But if we had, the age of the heuristic would be no more a stroke against it than the "width" of a belief would be. Old things are not therefore true; but neither are new things therefore true.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But it is typical of permissive religiosity. In their parlance, anybody who doesn't agree with them is not sufficiently "broad" in their thinking, or not as "open" as they should be, or more "narrow" than is justified, or not "inclusive" enough, and so on. It's a petty shaming tactic. What it really signals, though, is a refusal to know anything, to acknowledge certainties, to accept any evidence as counting, or to believe that anybody could have more or better information than they already do: in other words, it signals a refusal to learn, grow or change. In the place of the latter, a blank "tolerance" gets substituted, and the permissive religionist feels virtuous for his/her lack of understanding.

The undergirding gist here is, once again, specifically apologetic. The statement made is: The Hebrew-Christian conception of what God is, what God asks for, how God manifests in human life and consciousness, is the only valid conception.

IC establishes a gross generalization as a determining fact: he invokes a very specific opponent of Christian dogmatic conception who demands that the conception of God become more “broad” — i.e. not Christian at all or not necessarily Christian. IC employs this gambit because, obviously, he can conceive of no other concept of God, or wills to conceive of no other, because he is precisely that dogmatically inclined and specifically Evangelical Christian believer. Thus no other ‘believer’ has for him any ground to stand on. And again: if a god is conceived of, honored or worshipped, it can be none other but a false god: that is, one of Satan’s minions.

With that said, we can now turn our attention to this interesting statement:

It's a petty shaming tactic. What it really signals, though, is a refusal to know anything, to acknowledge certainties, to accept any evidence as counting, or to believe that anybody could have more or better information than they already do: in other words, it signals a refusal to learn, grow or change.

IC’s ultimate technique, embedded in all statements, any statement, that he can make, is that unless you “bend your knee” to his definitional God, you will by your refusal be sent to, or wind up eventually, in the eternal hell-realm. It is a petty psychologically manipulative technique and, quite possibly, the refuge of a theological scoundrel.

People come to despise the Christian (more usually of a certain ilk) when they realize they are being subjected to the rhetorical tactics of psychological manipulation.

Questions fo follow however: If “God” is being talked about, then technically the most important questions about LIFE are being talked about. And to refer to “theological broadness” is to give deference to other peoples, and other historical periods, and other conceptual possibilities (about life) held to and valued by others.

The Christian zealot in his most brutal manifestation is, unfortunately, one who deliberately undermines any validity of any different god-concept. There is an imperiousness embedded in evangelism that is unquestionably operative.

The refusal to learn, grow and change can then perhaps be seen as a characteristic of the zealot.

It is curious for me to enunciate this critical view because I have been studying Orthodox Catholicism for a number of years. At the core of it, as at the core of strict Talmudic Judaism, is the simplistic idea that “the gods of the Gentiles are demons”.

It is the ultimate existential imperialism. It says there is only one true and foundational view of life and existence that is valid. And it also says that any other view that asserts itself is demoniac.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Open Letter to Immanuel Can

Now I am begging you: please PLEASE in the name of human decency turn from your path of destructive psychological manipulation!

A Scoundrel’s life is not worth living, Bro.

I promise to help you to emerge, a radiant, pulsing, newly born theological butterfly if you resolve to sign up for The 32-Week Email Course.

I am waiving all fees!

[Walker]

IC establishes a gross generalization as a determining fact: he invokes a very specific opponent of Christian dogmatic conception who demands that the conception of God become more “broad” — i.e. not Christian at all or not necessarily Christian. IC employs this gambit because, obviously, he can conceive of no other concept of God, or wills to conceive of no other, because he is precisely that dogmatically inclined and specifically Evangelical Christian believer. Thus no other ‘believer’ has for him any ground to stand on. And again: if a god is conceived of, honored or worshipped, it can be none other but a false god: that is, one of Satan’s minions.

Isn’t that the Christian view, rather than an assumed personal view?

Total acceptance and understanding of a religious view in terms of one’s personal apprehended reality is what gives that view legs to walk through time. (too much?)

It’s how all the long term religions exist. They are believed, come hell or high water (Job), and the wishy-washy ones subject to the latest fashions, fold up in the wash.

IC presents the Christian View, which applies to all cultures, except those inseparable from another view, such as a non-Christian theocracy.

[Walker]

(continued)

The way I figure it …

Since all those non-Christian heathens are condemned to hell because they have not received the word of God, then as a Christian, isn’t it your duty to offer the word of God to them, so that through free will, their inner beings that crave redemption will have the God-given choice to be free in this life, and the next? Why yes, it is, it is your Christian duty to be such an agent of God. S.D.G.

What’s wrong with that?

At the worst, such agency generates pity in the agent, towards the heathen. If the cobwebs should be cleared out by the reality of life experienced, then such agency can generate selfless compassion caused by the possibility that a soul will be saved from the fires of hell … according to the Christian view and quite an admirable self-sacrifice of time, energy, and persistence by the Christian, as an agent of the highest power … and if I’ve misrepresented or offended it is totally because of my own ignorance and lack of understanding.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You see nothing works for a believer with non-believers like humility. I've been that former side of the counter up against a prodigious intellect and had a good and pleasant conversation. Unfortunately, little did we know, he [had] planted the seed of destruction of my false knowledge.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It’s how all the long term religions exist. They are believed, come hell or high water (Job), and the wishy-washy ones subject to the latest fashions, fold up in the wash.

I would place modern Vedanta in a different category. You likely know this because you have some background in the subject.

Extremely disciplined and ultra-demanding religious rules have a benefit, as well as a deficit.

Here on this forum everyone is ultra- ultra-modern and no one here really comes from a background where a religion was actually practiced. We are post-Christian.

When any one of us speaks about religion — Christianity — we speak of it as people largely outside of it. If someone here “embraced religion” it would be through a mood of nostalgia for a time when ‘belief’ has real (and possible).

Everyone writing here has ‘folded’ in that wash.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC presents the Christian View, which applies to all cultures, except those inseparable from another view, such as a non-Christian theocracy.

His is an outmoded theology that is simulacra. He moves no one.

In order to understand where even any one of us could or might go in some sort of theology or spiritual relationship requires burying what is dead in dear IC.

The amazing thing about IC is that he refuses to ‘die’; to relent; to hear; to be transformed. In this sense, like a ghost, he resurrects constantly and haunts perennially.

In theology there are other avenues.