Christianity

[attofishpi]

It can be nice to think of sitting in person and having a talk with the idealized Jesus that is portrayed in Christianity, sharing perspectives of love, kindness, and understanding with him, as well as hearing about his own disappointment (even irritation) at what Christianity has morphed into, and how so many of his followers are on a completely different track in his name.

But, actually having that in-person talk with Jesus might reveal a man who -- although his divine light was shining bright -- was a zealot, enraptured with his own beliefs... a product of his time. And the entire story surrounding and glorifying him was pieced together for guidance and inspiration for others, much as other stories have been created about inspiring people throughout the ages.

The fact that a resulting religion and Bible was assembled and proliferated to direct people in certain ways with archaic ideas and outlandish claims, while claiming it is all of this God, is more demonstrative of OTHER influences being played out through and upon humankind. Anyone who wants to see beyond it can see how it has been used.

There are, and have been, countless people who have reflected the brightness of divine light in many extraordinary ways throughout human time and humankind. It is absolutely ridiculous to think such divine light is limited to only certain theist ideas. One need NOT be theist at all! Any theist ideas that claim to be the truest divine path are false, manipulated paths for their own purposes, and should be challenged and questioned vigorously by all, especially by their own followers. Such limited divine notions don't make sense. And the intoxication of them is very powerful and dangerous for all of humankind.

I agree. It's difficult to imagine that whoever or whatever may have created the entire universe is the divine incarnate of Archie Bunker.

...yep, an idiot would agree with that.

[attofishpi]

I agree that Christ was compassionate. The only caveat is that he (inadvertently) crushed the skulls of numerous money-changers when he went on that famous rampage. This did not get reported in the Gospel. One of the men -- a shark I admit, a real dirty dealer -- was reduced to the level of mental retardation when Jesus whacked his avaricious head with that hardwood stick! It literally bashed in his skull. He become a drooling retard and his mother had to feed him gruel and change his soiled clothing for the rest of his life.

Where on Earth did you get that from!!?

I simply made a logical extension of the result of an act of violent punishment. What is the main Christian idea? God's punishment. The idea of punishment runs through the Gospels and indeed is one of the central ideas, no?

That's your idea of a logical extension? From Christ getting pissed off at a bunch of market sellers in a Church and knocking the stalls over...to Christ bashing a man's skull in and causing him to be disabled for the rest of his life!

Fuck, and I thought you might have been one of the people that not only had knowledge, but knew how to apply intelligence to that.

No, it does not follow. Again, where are you getting the information to support your claim that Christ bashed a man's skull caussing disabilibty.

Here is a curious comparison. Did you know that when Krishna (in the Bhagavatam) defeats and destroys a demon (all the stories of Krishna are stories about his miraculous feats in all sorts of circumstances) that the demon achieves spiritual liberation? Not punishment (eternally) but liberation! Effectively, you cannot have any contact with god (the incarnation of Vishnu) that functions against you. It seems to but in the end the opposite is the case.

I find almost anything I read pertaining to spiritual anecdotes etc...as esoteric waffle.

God is akin to A.I. VERY CLINICALLY ACCURATE. I sniggered yesterday when I saw a clip of Neil DeGrasse Tyson state that the universe "decided" to make him a physicist. An atheist again saying the universe makes a decision about something,...BUT FUCK DON"T CONSIDER THAT AS GOD...GOD FORBID!!!!

wanker.

Here is an interesting anecdote from my own incarnation chain. This is a completely true story. As sure as I am me and you are you. It is just one of the powerful Stories from my Ten Week Email Liberation Course at only $9.99 a week:

Many lives ago I was an ardent seeker.

I knew of a Master who lived on air alone high up in the mountains of T---------. When He came to the city he was my dharma teacher. But I got it into my head to avoid His injunction to pay attention to my family and community in this life and I set out, in rebellious will but thinking I was doing the right thing, on the long trek upward into the howling winds of extreme mountain ranges to seek Him. After weeks of seeking finally I came across Master with a small group of disciples and burst in on the scene, prostrating myself at His feet, subtly proud of my attainment.

"What use have I for you in your unevolved condition!" He said. "Your trip was in vain. Jump off a cliff for all I care!"

In my despondency I did jump! I died, smashed on the rocks below. But here is the amazing part: Master came and with miraculous metaphysical powers willed my flesh and atoms back together!

"You did well. You obeyed! Now you are in a condition to receive my Wisdom!"

"What will you have me do?" I asked.

"Go back and attend to your family and your community, you idiot!"

________________________________

Interestingly, and from a Vedic perspective, Jesus Christ would be seen (ie interpreted) as being an incarnation of Vishnu. Vishnu incarnates from time to time in various points in the universe to liberate.

There was once an elephant named Gajendra who lived in a garden called Ṛtumat, which was created by Varuna. This garden was located on Mount Trikuta, the "Three-Peaked Mountain". Gajendra ruled over all the other elephants in the herd. One day, as usual, he went to the lake near by to pick lotus flowers to offer prayer to Vishnu. Suddenly, a crocodile living in the lake attacked Gajendra, and caught him by the leg. Gajendra tried for a long time to escape from the crocodile's clutches. All of his herd, relatives, and friends gathered around to help him, but in vain. The crocodile simply would not let go. When they realised that ‘death’ had come close to Gajendra, they left him alone. He trumpeted in pain and helplessness until he was hoarse. As the struggle was seemingly endless, when he had spent his last drop of energy, Gajendra called to his deity Vishnu to save him, holding a lotus up in the air as an offering.

Hearing his devotee's call and prayer, Vishnu rushed to the scene. As Gajendra sighted the god coming, he lifted the lotus with his trunk. Seeing this, Vishnu was pleased, and with his Sudharshana Chakra, he decapitated the crocodile. Gajendra prostrated himself before the deity. Vishnu informed Gajendra that he, in one of his previous births, had been the celebrated King Indradyumna, a devotee of Vishnu, but due to his disrespect to the great sage Agastya, he had been cursed to be reborn as an elephant. Because Indradyumna had been devoted to Vishnu, the deity had him born as Gajendra and made him understand the concept of Kaivalya, which was beyond Svarga and Urdhva Loka, the realm of the gods. Indradyumna was to attain moksha when he (as Gajendra) left all his pride and doubt, and totally surrendered himself to Vishnu.

Let those who have eyes try to see what Alexis Jacobi is communicating here!



Thus I always -- always! -- quote from James 1:5

“If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you”.

A bloke with that many arms could turn me gay...could have a lot of fun with that fella in the sack.

Here IS wisdom.

Vowels of the Sage


www.androcies.com

[Harry Baird]

Again, where are you getting the information to support your claim that Christ bashed a man's skull caussing disabilibty.

Forgive me the interjection, but: to gain access to that information, you are going to have to fork out $9.99 (weekly) for AJ's Course. It's all very clearly presented in the coursework. Copyright prevents me from sharing it here though.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's your idea of a logical extension? From Christ getting pissed off at a bunch of market sellers in a Church and knocking the stalls over...to Christ bashing a man's skull in and causing him to be disabled for the rest of his life!

OK, OK, I admit I made it up! All exaggeration. But think of it: a violent outburst has effects. It was a punishment, a chastisement. And the point is that Christians do say that failing to capture the message (of repentance) will result in far worse than head bumps from a thrashing. To be crippled at the hand of god is certainly better than eternal punishment.

Forgive my breeziness in playing irreverently within these tropes. I have not relinquished the sense of respect for the sacred. It is that I am no longer very clear what it refers to.

(Maybe you should read through the post again. it is *multi-dimensional*.)

Jesus did drive hogs over a cliff. He did make some pretty fierce threats. I recognize they were possessed hogs. But the metaphor has extensive application if you project it forward.

And what about the interesting mythic contrast: when Krishna bashes the head of a demon that demon is ‘liberated’. But the Jewish notion sets up an eternal prison-torture camp.

Just not sure I can go along with that …

[Alexis Jacobi]

King Arthur and the knights of the round table, Robin Hood and his merry men, Jesus and his disciples; just legends, Gary …

…but Alexis Jacobi has come among us and miraculously mythological grace meets fully tangible gracefulness — for those with non-mule ears to hear!

[Lacewing]

...yep, an idiot would agree with that.

There is nothing wrong with considering the perspective and points I suggested. Philosophy is about more than the limits of your beliefs and the limits of Christian beliefs.

For example, I said:

There are, and have been, countless people who have reflected the brightness of divine light in many extraordinary ways throughout human time and humankind. It is absolutely ridiculous to think such divine light is limited to only certain theist ideas.

Evidently your level of intoxication cannot allow this kind of awareness into your brain at all and compels you to respond with idiotic asshole retorts.

[Harry Baird]

Some epistemological musings, all provisional, and all open to finessing...

Truth(fulness) is a property of (a) meaning(ful statement), where the meaning(ful statement) is usually embodied in symbols with defined syntax and grammar, i.e., a language.

Three basic categories of truth are (these are my own terms which might or might not reflect standard usage):

1. Representational, in which the degree of truth of the meaning(ful statement) is proportional to the accuracy with which it corresponds to that which it represents (something beyond itself).
2. Semantic, in which the meaning(ful statement) does not represent anything beyond itself but rather is (ultimately) a tautology given its meaning. Mathematical proofs and logical arguments are examples, but, more prosaically, so are statements like "A bachelor is an unmarried man".
3. Normative, being that embodied in (especially ethical) principles, prescriptions, and proscriptions. Example: "It is wrong to intentionally cause harm to another where that harm could reasonably have been avoided." (Arguably, this category could be subsumed as a sub-category of representational truth, in which the correspondence is with an abstract/Platonic normative realm).

Two types of representational truth are (same caveat):

1. Direct: those based in personal experience. Example: I currently see the image of a computer screen in front of me.
2. Empirical: those based on inferences from observation. Example: a scientific theory.

Semantic and direct truths are known infallibly and incontrovertibly. Empirical truths are not. We can only be more or less confident in the actual truth of a potential empirical truth based on how reliably we observe its consequences and predictions in reality - and, strictly speaking, our confidence could always be totally misplaced.

Normative truths are in between: they can be known more or less infallibly. They are known by inference, given an objective, impersonal perspective, from the relevant direct and empirical truths.

Where, then, does this leave Truth-with-a-capital-T?

Simply as those most profound of empirical and normative truths that most broadly describe and explain reality and how we ought to behave in it.

Experimental science can probably only get us so far towards it.

the object of science (as we know it) is not *truth* but rather *accurate description*

Given my musings above, the two (*truth* and *accurate description*) are, in the context of science, synonymous (as that which I've referred to as "empirical truth", being a type of "representational truth"). For reference and clarity, I'm endorsing here a correspondence theory of truth.

The 'scientific description' of the world, as we all know, has supplanted metaphysical views

Extending my musings: in this context, "metaphysical" truths are a sub-type of "empirical" truths; they are those truths regarding the empirical reality that lies beyond "physical" reality. To some extent, they are scientifically accessible, but the current naturalistic assumptions of current science mean that currently this is not taking place to any great extent. This is consistent with the assertion that (currently):

these latter [i.e., metaphysical views --Harry] are often described now as vast hallucinations and the work of the imagination run wild.

So, I think that this (reordered for relevance and flow)...

But back to the question of the truth and what is true. If we take the science-view to its ultimate point every human truth is shown to be sentimental clap-trap, a series of lies which lead to self-deception.

...is only true with respect to the (naturalistic aka materialistic) assumptions and prejudices behind the way science is currently practised (in general; there are exceptions), and not with respect to the ideal practice of science.

Now, re this:

The 'science view' however, even though it explains phenomena, really does not explain much of anything. In fact it does away with explanation. It reduces Explanation to mere explanation.

I think I understand what you're getting at. It is perhaps another way of getting at that which this quote (from Bernardo Kastrup's Why Materialism Is Baloney) also gets at:

[S]cience can explain a body in terms of tissues; tissues in terms of cells; cells in terms of molecules; molecules in terms of atoms; and atoms in terms of subatomic particles. But then it can only explain one subatomic particle in terms of another, by highlighting their relative differences. Science cannot explain the fundamental nature of what a subatomic particle is in itself, since all scientific explanations need a frame of reference to provide contrasts.

Capturing the observable patterns and regularities of the elements of reality, relative to each other, is an empirical and scientific question. But pondering about the fundamental nature of these elements is not; it is a philosophical question

Moving on:

Philosophy is a little different from the sciences in that it puts wisdom at the top of the order of priority.

The term 'wisdom' is one closely linked with religious truth. And if there is 'philosophical wisdom' it is, it seems to me, the jibber-jabber of those who talk philosophically about essentially religious categories of value.

I guess that this depends on what you mean in context by "religious". Given that, to me, religion (and its truths) and philosophy (and its wisdom) are distinct categories, I disagree with you here on my own terms, but you might well be right on your own.

I am not sure about your definition of *philosophy*.

Although this was not directed at me, here's my definition anyway: clear thinking about reality and how to behave in it. In context, "clear thinking about" is similar to - and compatible with, but less loaded than - "wisdom regarding".

I think in my next wondrous essay I am going to have to tell the Story of the Jacobi family. The three siblings Ephraim, Elisabeth and Alexis and how Alexis won-out and got hold of the family wealth! I pushed Ephraim out of the metaphorical nest! He had all the spiritual talent and a great deal of the charisma, but I had the Machiavellian will. I survived, he collapsed.

I believe I am correct in predicting that Elisabeth, then, in deep horror at the depths of the depravity of (human) Nature, was forever lost to the world, but please straighten me out if I have erred here.

[Harry Baird]

I confess that I have been looking forward to the opportunity to post something more extended - as I have done above - in the hope that it will provoke a review by BigMike, with one of those delightful conclusions which restates and summarises the review, and that (the conclusion) in turn provokes us each to exclaim to ourselves, "Yes! I knew it! That *is* what he meant all along!"

[Harry Baird]

There are, and have been, countless people who have reflected the brightness of divine light in many extraordinary ways throughout human time and humankind.

Let it shine

[attofishpi]

...yep, an idiot would agree with that.

There is nothing wrong with considering the perspective and points I suggested. Philosophy is about more than the limits of your beliefs and the limits of Christian beliefs.

For example, I said:

There are, and have been, countless people who have reflected the brightness of divine light in many extraordinary ways throughout human time and humankind. It is absolutely ridiculous to think such divine light is limited to only certain theist ideas.

Evidently your level of intoxication cannot allow this kind of awareness into your brain at all and compels you to respond with idiotic asshole retorts.

ffs.

Please do tell how I am limited and absolutely ridiculous in my Christian beliefs. And go ahead, explain how you have some 'philosophical' insight beyond what my mind is restricted to simply by being theist.

Again, only an idiot would make and agree to such an idiotic statement.

PS. I'd also be interested in hearing about this "divine light"...that has nothing to do with God!

[Gary Childress]

...yep, an idiot would agree with that.

There is nothing wrong with considering the perspective and points I suggested. Philosophy is about more than the limits of your beliefs and the limits of Christian beliefs.

For example, I said:

There are, and have been, countless people who have reflected the brightness of divine light in many extraordinary ways throughout human time and humankind. It is absolutely ridiculous to think such divine light is limited to only certain theist ideas.

Evidently your level of intoxication cannot allow this kind of awareness into your brain at all and compels you to respond with idiotic asshole retorts.

ffs.

Please do tell how I am limited and absolutely ridiculous in my Christian beliefs. And go ahead, explain how you have some 'philosophical' insight beyond what my mind is restricted to simply by being theist.

Again, only an idiot would make and agree to such an idiotic statement.

PS. I'd also be interested in hearing about this "divine light"...that has nothing to do with God!

No one knows anything one way or the other concerning things that are supposed to happen after death. The only way to find out is to die and so far no one has come back to life after more than a few minutes of death to tell us about it.

[attofishpi]

No one knows anything one way or the other concerning things that are supposed to happen after death. The only way to find out is to die and so far no one has come back to life after more than a few minutes of death to tell us about it.

..and your point is? (what has that got to do with our discussion?)

[Gary Childress]

No one knows anything one way or the other concerning things that are supposed to happen after death. The only way to find out is to die and so far no one has come back to life after more than a few minutes of death to tell us about it.

..and your point is? (what has that got to do with our discussion?)

The point is, you're dead certain about things no one can be dead certain of.

[attofishpi]

No one knows anything one way or the other concerning things that are supposed to happen after death. The only way to find out is to die and so far no one has come back to life after more than a few minutes of death to tell us about it.

..and your point is? (what has that got to do with our discussion?)

The point is, you're dead certain about things no one can be dead certain of.

What am I dead certain of Gary? I might have to get on to room service for a nice cocktail for this one!

[Gary Childress]

..and your point is? (what has that got to do with our discussion?)

The point is, you're dead certain about things no one can be dead certain of.

What am I dead certain of Gary?

That Christianity is the case. Or have you now switched to agnosticism?