The Democrat Party Hates America

[mickthinks]

Manny’s last resort when he knows he’s wrong is to abandon the truth. And he is wrong a lot of the time. That’s really all you need to know about him.

[phyllo]

The Law insofar as it applies to Jews, had to be fulfilled. The aspects of the Law and prophets that apply to the Gentiles had also to be fulfilled. But when Christ was speaking, the NT did not yet exist. So He cannot have been saying anything but that the OT Law must be fulfilled, contrary to B's beliefs that we can simply dispense with the OT now.

Oh come on.

The Bible is full of predictions of what is coming.

Jesus gives hints of what is coming.

Now you want to say that Jesus didn't know that the NT and Christianity was coming? And he couldn't tailor the message appropriately?

[Impenitent]

Jesus foretold the future?

as if by miracle...

history never repeats...

-Imp

[Alexis Jacobi]

True, I seek a reasonable religion, one that speaks reason to me and others.

You can only mean, "one I like." If you think it has to do with "reason," instead, then please explain how "reason" compels your view. If it compels you, and it's "reason," it should compel all "reasonable" others, as well.

It is hard to find an example of a ‘reasonable religion’ since, by definition, religious views are metaphysical pictures or stories. And such stories only exist in and arise out of the human entity (i.e. non-evidenced in Nature aka ‘reality’). Possibly the more reasonable religious-like practice that has gained some purchase in the Occident and among post-Christians is Buddhism since it requires giving assent to rational premises about ‘suffering’ and the avoidance of suffering.

So if we were to be truthful and were to see clearly we would likely say that nearly everyone who participates in this forum and in this later-stage philosophical pursuit, have no tenable option but to reject what is fabulous and unbelievable in the Christian mythology. That is, when it is examined as ‘real history’. And curiously what is mythic in the belief about the avataric descent of God into a human vessel intersected genuine, verifiable history (a specific time in Judea under Roman occupation) and for this reason the Gospel picture is uniquely understood as having direct applicability in the present.

(You can successfully visualize Jesus acting in the Gospels, but every depiction of the Jesus personage when portrayed in a modern setting fails miserably.)

There is an interesting corresponding ‘picture’ in Medieval India (Bengal) that developed quite late — 500 or 600 years ago — in the rise of an ecstatic religious movement led by Caitanya.

By corresponding I mean somewhat comparable to ecstatic evangelical Christianity. Comparable to Pentecostalism. The ‘school’ of Christianity that Immanuel represents is hard to locate if only because Immanuel attempts to ground irrational belief and ecstatic faith in a reasonably presented apologetics. It is curious to note however that Immanuel’s apologetics fail resoundingly because it lacks an ecstatic hook. In attempting to present a reasoned picture it is confronted by disbelief among those who literally cannot believe the fables. (Again consider Adam & Eve when presented as “the original mating pair” and realize that it does not evoke religious assent but rather laughter and unbridled guffaws).

In my view — when seeking an interpretive statement — we of the Occidental are obviously in a phase in which our own Christian picture has substantially collapsed. What results is an impetus in our will to continue to believe the unbelievable because the structure of belief has so many easily obtained advantages. If we seek a possible “ultimate interpretation” of dear Immanuel it is likely in this “manoeuvre”.

However, there is in fact an element that is not talked about much here and that is the psychic and psychological realness of spiritual initiation. When all that is left to a person who has “bottomed out” is an irrational turn to (as they say) “one’s higher power”.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose we all do our best.I guess you need to have 'reasonable' explained to you.

No, but it would be nice to know why somebody who thinks she can't offer reasonable arguments would persist here.

I persist in replying to you because evangelicalism is a menace to democracy.

It's not. In fact, it's the basis of all the liberal states we have today, actually...and that's historically demonstrable.

But I'm curious what you understand in your use of the world "democracy." People use it to signal all kinds of things today. What's your personal definition of "democracy"?

[Immanuel Can]

True, I seek a reasonable religion, one that speaks reason to me and others.

You can only mean, "one I like." If you think it has to do with "reason," instead, then please explain how "reason" compels your view. If it compels you, and it's "reason," it should compel all "reasonable" others, as well.

It is hard to find an example of a ‘reasonable religion’

I'm not a fan of religion, for that and other reasons. I'd prefer realities.

since, by definition, religious views are metaphysical pictures or stories.

This doesn't follow, actually. Another term for such stories is "anecdotes" or "parables," which need not be fantastic, but rather are stories that reveal aspects of reality.

And such stories only exist in and arise out of the human entity

That's an assumption. It's probably true in most cases. But it begs the question regarding plenary inspiration, for sure. That conclusion is not automatically true.

So if we were to be truthful and were to see clearly we would likely say that nearly everyone who participates in this forum and in this later-stage philosophical pursuit, have no tenable option but to reject what is fabulous and unbelievable in the Christian mythology.

Well, something doesn't get to be untrue merely because you choose to call it "fabulous" or "unbelievable." It might be a parable, or it might be a surprising truth; this would have to be settled on individual cases, obviously, rather than dismissed with one sweep of the hand.

[Alexis Jacobi]

All religions that we could name and refer to involve elaborate stories about divine and enlightened figures in struggles with demonic entities or with issues and problems understood to be demonic-like. (For example delusion taken in the Buddhist sense).

However, and here I might refer to the Nigerian religion Iwa, religious belief in divine entity intersects with practical matters and problems and their solution. There is also the aspect involving ’spiritual healing’ which corresponds to our psychological and psychiatric practices.

You can try to assert that you are not a fan of religion and see your faith-position as realism, but if you attempt this you will find yourself in an untenable and uncomfortable hole (which is where in fact you have positioned yourself vis-a-vis this forum). You will have taken “Immanuel’s religion” to a solipsistic level.

Well, something doesn't get to be untrue merely because you choose to call it "fabulous" or "unbelievable." It might be a parable, or it might be a surprising truth; this would have to be settled on individual cases, obviously, rather than dismissed with one sweep of the hand.

You are a crafty preacher but a bad philosophical apologist. Yes, a fabulous story can definitely contain or express truths. But those truths exist and are recognized as having independence from the fabulous story. The story may fall away, the truth remains.

I sweep nothing away imperiously because everything about the world of man is tremendously layered and complex. And my “ultimate refuge” is in my view that metaphysical truths certainly “exist”.

Nevertheless, or more relevantly, our best use of our time and thought is in an examination of how people in our present are applying these ideas.

[Alexis Jacobi]

For this reason — and germane to the topic of this thread — are those views developing in our present that are Christian activist.

Andrew Torba speaking directly to contemporary issues of immediate concern to an entire faction within Christianity (which transcends the Protestant-Catholic division I should add):

A line has been crossed in the conscience of the American Christian. The theological and political chains that bound us to a foreign agenda, crafted not in the interests of our nation but for the benefit of those who reject our Lord, have been broken. For generations, we labored under a dual loyalty: pledging our hearts to Christ and the American nation while our government bowed to Israel and Jewish donors. We funded wars we didn’t believe in, silenced truths we were called to speak, and sacrificed our sons and daughters on altars of a foreign nation that scorns the very name of Jesus.

That captivity ends now.

This is our Christian Declaration of Independence from Jewish power. A sovereign assertion that our allegiance is to God alone, and that our nation’s destiny will no longer be mortgaged to the interests of a predatory ethnic lobby or an unbelieving nation state. We reject the curated guilt, the theological distortions, and the political blackmail that have long subverted our witness and plundered our republic. We have seen the cost of compromise, and we will pay it no longer. This is where we take our stand. This is where we draw the line.

The primary, overriding issue in American politics today is not the border, not the economy, not even the cultural rot—it is the question of sovereignty. Specifically, it is the unresolved and unaddressed problem of a powerful, organized minority exercising a degree of influence over our government that is wholly disproportionate to its size and fundamentally at odds with the interests of the American nation. When our elected officials, from both parties, are beholden to the agenda of a foreign nation-state and the domestic lobbying power of a 2% minority, we do not, in any meaningful sense, have a government of, by, and for the American people.

We have a captured state.

[Belinda]

True, I seek a reasonable religion, one that speaks reason to me and others.

You can only mean, "one I like." If you think it has to do with "reason," instead, then please explain how "reason" compels your view. If it compels you, and it's "reason," it should compel all "reasonable" others, as well.

It is hard to find an example of a ‘reasonable religion’ since, by definition, religious views are metaphysical pictures or stories. And such stories only exist in and arise out of the human entity (i.e. non-evidenced in Nature aka ‘reality’). Possibly the more reasonable religious-like practice that has gained some purchase in the Occident and among post-Christians is Buddhism since it requires giving assent to rational premises about ‘suffering’ and the avoidance of suffering.

So if we were to be truthful and were to see clearly we would likely say that nearly everyone who participates in this forum and in this later-stage philosophical pursuit, have no tenable option but to reject what is fabulous and unbelievable in the Christian mythology. That is, when it is examined as ‘real history’. And curiously what is mythic in the belief about the avataric descent of God into a human vessel intersected genuine, verifiable history (a specific time in Judea under Roman occupation) and for this reason the Gospel picture is uniquely understood as having direct applicability in the present.

(You can successfully visualize Jesus acting in the Gospels, but every depiction of the Jesus personage when portrayed in a modern setting fails miserably.)

There is an interesting corresponding ‘picture’ in Medieval India (Bengal) that developed quite late — 500 or 600 years ago — in the rise of an ecstatic religious movement led by Caitanya.

By corresponding I mean somewhat comparable to ecstatic evangelical Christianity. Comparable to Pentecostalism. The ‘school’ of Christianity that Immanuel represents is hard to locate if only because Immanuel attempts to ground irrational belief and ecstatic faith in a reasonably presented apologetics. It is curious to note however that Immanuel’s apologetics fail resoundingly because it lacks an ecstatic hook. In attempting to present a reasoned picture it is confronted by disbelief among those who literally cannot believe the fables. (Again consider Adam & Eve when presented as “the original mating pair” and realize that it does not evoke religious assent but rather laughter and unbridled guffaws).

In my view — when seeking an interpretive statement — we of the Occidental are obviously in a phase in which our own Christian picture has substantially collapsed. What results is an impetus in our will to continue to believe the unbelievable because the structure of belief has so many easily obtained advantages. If we seek a possible “ultimate interpretation” of dear Immanuel it is likely in this “manoeuvre”.

However, there is in fact an element that is not talked about much here and that is the psychic and psychological realness of spiritual initiation. When all that is left to a person who has “bottomed out” is an irrational turn to (as they say) “one’s higher power”.

That's not correct, Alexis. Religious views , beside myth, also include moral codes and rituals.

Your emphasis on religious mysticism is wrong. Mysticism is elitist as Irenaeus pointed out . He saw this as an elitist distortion of Christianity, because it reserved true salvation and spiritual insight for a hidden few who possessed gnosis (esoteric knowledge).

I'ts also incorrect that

"every depiction of the Jesus personage when portrayed in a modern setting fails miserably"

Jesus is a powerful icon that has been adapted to cultural change for two thousand years.

Immanuel Can is in a straight line with the Irenaic tradition via Protestantism and Biblical literalism. IC is not a religious mystic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You misunderstand me when I say that the figure of Jesus cannot be portrayed in present settings. I refer to novelistic and movie depictions of Jesus in modern garb in boardrooms, on battlefields, in neighborhoods. Jesus turns into “a really really nice guy”.

He can only effectively or genuinely be visualized in the Gospels.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your emphasis on religious mysticism is wrong. Mysticism is elitist as Irenaeus pointed out . He saw this as an elitist distortion of Christianity, because it reserved true salvation and spiritual insight for a hidden few who possessed gnosis (esoteric knowledge).

I think you are confusing Gnostic Christianity with Christian mysticism.

In any case, my perspectives on religion involve trying to understand a wide range of factors. Mysticism is certainly one. And so is the attempt to present Christian conversion as rational-realism.

Immanuel Can is in a straight line with the Irenaic tradition via Protestantism and Biblical literalism. IC is not a religious mystic.

I am uncertain how ‘straight’ that line is.

[Belinda]

No, but it would be nice to know why somebody who thinks she can't offer reasonable arguments would persist here.

I persist in replying to you because evangelicalism is a menace to democracy.

It's not. In fact, it's the basis of all the liberal states we have today, actually...and that's historically demonstrable.

But I'm curious what you understand in your use of the world "democracy." People use it to signal all kinds of things today. What's your personal definition of "democracy"?

Fair point. I mean by democracy that with democracy the power status of each man regardless of race, age, gender, social class, and wealth, is equal to that of any other man. That principle is reflected in politics of democracy, and in the Eye of the Needle image.

[Belinda]

Your emphasis on religious mysticism is wrong. Mysticism is elitist as Irenaeus pointed out . He saw this as an elitist distortion of Christianity, because it reserved true salvation and spiritual insight for a hidden few who possessed gnosis (esoteric knowledge).

I think you are confusing Gnostic Christianity with Christian mysticism.

In any case, my perspectives on religion involve trying to understand a wide range of factors. Mysticism is certainly one. And so is the attempt to present Christian conversion as rational-realism.

Immanuel Can is in a straight line with the Irenaic tradition via Protestantism and Biblical literalism. IC is not a religious mystic.

I am uncertain how ‘straight’ that line is.

Christian mysticism shares with Gnosticism the weakness of Valentinus when confronted with Irenaeus.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That’s just jibber-jabber Belinda. Most religious people have a deeply mystical relationship with and through their faith. You are outside of this understanding because you are not involved with religious practice. Religious practice involves ethics, morality, mystical relationship and certainly “spiritual magic”.

Did you not study Book Nine in the Second Section of The Course!? I have it all mapped out and color-coded …

[Immanuel Can]

I persist in replying to you because evangelicalism is a menace to democracy.

It's not. In fact, it's the basis of all the liberal states we have today, actually...and that's historically demonstrable.

But I'm curious what you understand in your use of the world "democracy." People use it to signal all kinds of things today. What's your personal definition of "democracy"?

Fair point. I mean by democracy that with democracy the power status of each man regardless of race, age, gender, social class, and wealth, is equal to that of any other man. That principle is reflected in politics of democracy, and in the Eye of the Needle image.

So...do you mean the system where every individual votes directly on every issue? Or do you mean the system where each individual votes on the electing of representatives, who then vote on their behalf on the issues and policies? Or, by "democracy," do you mean what Mao meant, which is that only the Socialists get to be real "people," and only they, the "people" who support the Party matter?