Christianity

[attofishpi]

Why are you being so rude?

Sorry, I honestly thought you were dealing with yourself.

Why is it that everytime you address me you fling ridiculous assertions that have nothing to do with me? (that's rhetorical, I honestly couldn't give a rats about why..just wish you'd stop making a fool of yourself)

[attofishpi]

Notice the anagram? (two words combined)

CHESS JURIST & THE PASSAGE OF TIME



Notice the anagram? (two words combined)

CHESS JURIST & THE PASSAGE OF TIME
(JESUS CHRIST & THE PASSAGE OF TIME)

[Lacewing]

Why is it that everytime you address me you fling ridiculous assertions that have nothing to do with me?

I wrote a reasonable post that had nothing to do with you, and you called Gary an idiot for agreeing with it.

Each of my attempts to then follow-up and clarify with you were met with hostility and rudeness.

It's as if you can't even see/discuss what I'm actually communicating, without distorting it in a way that pisses you off.

So just ignore my posts if they're of no interest to you... and keep your rude comments to yourself so you don't start something you can't reasonably interact in.

[Belinda]

I'd not argue with a drunk man because a drunk man can't think of alternatives.

Indeed. And it appears that drunkenness can be a state of mind.

Yes, I believe it's called a reactive state of mind. Uninhibited people such as drunk and other impetuous people don't reflect on what they say. A large part of what I like about these internet discussions is one gets time to reflect before replying.

[Lacewing]

A large part of what I like about these internet discussions is one gets time to reflect before replying.

I like that too! I've found the process to be very helpful and inspiring and entertaining in working through ideas for greater clarity and truth while practicing and experimenting with ways to share and present ideas artfully. But I've been thinking it's time for a break for me from the forum again. Other fulfilling projects are calling to me if I can set aside this time-consuming habit. Best wishes to you!

[attofishpi]

Why is it that everytime you address me you fling ridiculous assertions that have nothing to do with me?

I wrote a reasonable post that had nothing to do with you, and you called Gary an idiot for agreeing with it.

Yes, because the post was idiocy. You kept asserting that theists are limited

Each of my attempts to then follow-up and clarify with you were met with hostility and rudeness.

Really? And you don't think you are being rude to me by using strawman tactics and asserting that I think I know EVERYTHING and that I see NO limitations to my understanding! (AGAIN, where do you get these ridiculous ideas about me from...I have every right to be rude when dealing with such disgusting misrepresentations.)

I addressed your points that were clear idiocy and you retorted with the strawmaning.


DO YOU WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER GO WITHOUT SUCH TACTICS, here-->

...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.

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.

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

[Harry Baird]

I am always interested in the popular song as a vehicle for truth and value, but I find Mazzy Star's song to be less comprehensible than, say, Shine. I'd heard both but never really paid attention to the lyrics. Looking up the lyrics I can sort of sense what Mazzy Star is getting at but it never quite develops a full hook.

Yep. I have similar sentiments.

I recall sitting on public transport on Isla Margarita (Venezuela) some years back. It is quite hard to explain the psychic state I was in but a tremendous love felt, that could never materialize, was some part of it. Psychically opened, this song came on the radio in the bus (unusual in itself because I was in Latin America) and I felt that the *above* was communicating with the *below*. Something above and outside of myself made itself known through 'spiritualized sentiments'. What is that? It is a metaphor, right? The 'sky opens'. An angel appears in the heavens. One hears a celestial voice or a celestial tune.

It's hard not to feel a strange sense of solipsism in a situation like that, no? That the universe is in that moment uniquely tailored to oneself - and yet this cannot be true for everybody, and then yet again, how could it, or why would it, not be...?... It's an odd conundrum.

Again, though, in any case, that's a song that I quite like, although I had until now only been familiar with the original version by Cyndi Lauper.

The connotation is interesting both in the context of Christian mythology and that of Vaishnavism (the religious mythology of Vishnu). See, we have been talking about, or in any case I have been talking about, the nature of the world which is, when examined soberly, both an amazing cathedral and a terrifying and essentially cruel place. I ask your indulgence when you consider the word 'cruel' because I mean it very precisely. Life literally feeds on other lives. From bottom to top this is 'the way things are'. And in one way or another, inevitably, what is alive is killed and feasted on in an unending, eternal cycle.

I'm with you so far...

The lion will never lie with the lamb.

...but this affirmation is too definitive for me.

Reality is a very, very strange place, albeit that most of the time we are able to ignore that, or, at least, most of the time its strangeness does not shove itself in our faces.

Although reality surely at the moment presents various regularities which seem to be amenable to systematic investigation and technological exploitation, we have no generally accepted understanding as to why those regularities - for now - persist, and no basis for assuming that they will persist, exactly as they are, into the indefinite future, other than that, until now, they have done so... most of the time! That caveat is crucial. Reality has, for me personally, "violated" its commonly-accepted regularities on several occasions - which gives me the extra impetus to express caution with regard to your (in my view) over-confident affirmation.

And yet we assign value, we emulate, we elevate our projection of hope that, one day, the very nature of life will resolve itself into a harmony that we can live with. Because when you examine the facts our human issue is that we cannot quite face the facts. Facing the facts *kills us* in some sense. Facing the facts produces 'nihilism' and nihilism is really the end result of taking the 'science view' to its logical and necessary extreme.

Isn't nihilism in this context the consequence of answering "There is no reason. It's all meaningless." to the question "Why?"? Isn't it in this sense rather like unjustifiably taking the atheistic position instead of the justifiable agnostic one: affirming a negative when one ought really only to affirm ignorance?

I think you're conflating "the science view" with the metaphysical assumptions (naturalism/materialism) associated with science as it is currently practised - and those really are just assumptions, not (scientific) conclusions. They are not inevitable accompaniments to practising or appreciating science, and they are rather idiosyncratic to this particular moment in history in this particular cultural milieu.

So what is it then that 'intrudes' into our awareness? The 'voice' that shines in (to refer to the song Shine and the sentiment expressed through it) to our quotidian consciousness which is often not very content, not peaceful? It is a longing for a transcendent resolution.

I guess I have a fairly "straightforward" take on it as communication from divinity.

As a dualist, I don't attribute the cruelty in nature to the divine: divinity, too, longs for resolution - and is actively pursuing it.

It's a view not without its own difficulties that I haven't quite worked out yet, but it seems to me to be a better answer to the problem of evil than atheism and nihilism.

And oddly enough, from time to time, that experienced state flows in like an incomprehensible wind through an open window. I have a feeling that everyone knows of this, but then I have more faith in the 'lyrical' side of man's awareness than in the literalist side. I say that we cannot really live within literalism.

Yes, you are something of a mystic, and definitely an artist and appreciator of art.

Now in the Christian sense it is that of 'salvation' from out of a situation and a mess that, in fact, is irresolvable. The Earth and terrestrial life is, in Christian eyes, irresolvable. In order to be resolved it has to be returned to its original state or it must be transformed from what it is into something it is not. Something completely transmuted. The Earth in some perfected state.

But we know this will never happen.

There you go again, choosing to affirm a negative instead of ignorance. This is truly strange to me: that, given your mystical and spiritual tendencies, you would emulate the same sort of false choice as those made by the atheist and by the nihilist!

[Harry Baird]

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

I don't think that that's what Lacewing said or meant though. I get why you interpreted her words in that way, because, initially, I did too, and I contemplated picking her up on it, but, on rereading carefully, it seemed to me that she was simply saying that God's divine light shines even on those who don't believe in God, or at least who don't have dogmatic beliefs about God - not that it doesn't actually come from God, as it might (unfortunately) seem she had written.

Hopefully, she'll clarify if I've misspoken there though.

[Lacewing]

I wrote a reasonable post that had nothing to do with you, and you called Gary an idiot for agreeing with it.

Yes, because the post was idiocy. You kept asserting that theists are limited

No, I didn't. Here's the post, below. I pointed out (at the end) that any theist belief system claiming to be the truest divine path (considering so many throughout humankind and history) is a limited notion that doesn't make sense.

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.

[Lacewing]

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

I don't think that that's what Lacewing said or meant though. I get why you interpreted her words in that way, because, initially, I did too, and I contemplated picking her up on it, but, on rereading carefully, it seemed to me that she was simply saying that God's divine light shines even on those who don't believe in God, or at least who don't have dogmatic beliefs about God - not that it doesn't actually come from God, as it might (unfortunately) seem she had written.

Hopefully, she'll clarify if I've misspoken there though.

Thanks for calmly trying to understand, Harry. Although I do not believe in God as represented by the Bible, I do think there's a divine oneness pulsing/flowing throughout everyone and all of life. And yes, I think this 'divine light' shines through all, theist and non-theist alike. I do not think conventional theism is the only way to experience divine light, and it seems that a philosophy forum would be the kind of place to explore diverse perspectives.

Hopefully that helps clarify a bit? I do my best.

[attofishpi]

I wrote a reasonable post that had nothing to do with you, and you called Gary an idiot for agreeing with it.

Yes, because the post was idiocy. You kept asserting that theists are limited

No, I didn't. Here's the post, below. I pointed out (at the end) that any theist belief system claiming to be the truest divine path (considering so many throughout humankind and history) is a limited notion that doesn't make sense.

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.

You know, when I originally read the above I really liked the first paragraph, very intelligent and I have little doubt that Christ would be rather vexed at a lot of the rubbish that the likes of evangelicals with all their bigotry try to ascribe to His voice.

After that lacks any understanding of the man. (hence I guess in part why you consider yourself 'non' theist.)

Regarding the 'truest' divine path...I do believe Christ is the path to know God (I am an example of it) - but I also encompass Panentheism - a Hindu belief - and I believe they also have been inspired by this God entity - I am sure others to and of course Judaism. Does that surprise you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

There you go again, choosing to affirm a negative instead of ignorance. This is truly strange to me: that, given your mystical and spiritual tendencies, you would emulate the same sort of false choice as those made by the atheist and by the nihilist!

If humankind somehow ceased existing the Earth would ‘return’ — though truthfully it never ‘left’ — to being just Earth and nature. Biological and material systems in ecological harmony, and ‘life feeding on life’ in that strange and terrible way that is natural reality. The way it has always been here, and must always be.

Is that nihilism or nihilistic? No. Because nihilism is a human attitude. Nature is simply what it is. And it will continue, conceivably, for many hundreds of millions of years.

No god returning in balls of fire or with a celestial host to ‘save’ the Earth from itself. No transformation of the complex ecological relationships so that ‘lion lies with lamb’.

Mysticism and spirituality are human domains. As is any *conception* of the possibility that things could be different (could have been different) or that man, somehow could translate to another deathless sphere and transcend what Earth is; or — and here’s another aspect — that man can transform man’s civilizational life into something close(r) to paradise by countermanding nature and ‘the way things are’.

[Harry Baird]

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

I don't think that that's what Lacewing said or meant though. I get why you interpreted her words in that way, because, initially, I did too, and I contemplated picking her up on it, but, on rereading carefully, it seemed to me that she was simply saying that God's divine light shines even on those who don't believe in God, or at least who don't have dogmatic beliefs about God - not that it doesn't actually come from God, as it might (unfortunately) seem she had written.

Hopefully, she'll clarify if I've misspoken there though.

Thanks for calmly trying to understand, Harry. Although I do not believe in God as represented by the Bible, I do think there's a divine oneness pulsing/flowing throughout everyone and all of life. And yes, I think this 'divine light' shines through all, theist and non-theist alike. I do not think conventional theism is the only way to experience divine light, and it seems that a philosophy forum would be the kind of place to explore diverse perspectives.

Hopefully that helps clarify a bit? I do my best.

I think that helps. I expect that you'd agree with this, but let me know:

Even though you accept that, strictly speaking, in virtue of its standard meaning, "the divine" denotes a God or gods (of some description or other), and even though you accept that because theism is simply belief in God or gods (of some description or other), (your) belief in the divine entails a belief in God or gods and hence entails theism, you prefer not to explicitly use the word "God" (or "gods") in this context, nor to explicitly endorse theism, because of what you perceive to be the dogmatic connotations of those terms.

[Harry Baird]

If humankind somehow ceased existing the Earth would ‘return’ — though truthfully it never ‘left’ — to being just Earth and nature. Biological and material systems in ecological harmony, and ‘life feeding on life’ in that strange and terrible way that is natural reality. The way it has always been here, and must always be.

Is that nihilism or nihilistic? No. Because nihilism is a human attitude. Nature is simply what it is. And it will continue, conceivably, for many hundreds of millions of years.

No god returning in balls of fire or with a celestial host to ‘save’ the Earth from itself. No transformation of the complex ecological relationships so that ‘lion lies with lamb’.

Mysticism and spirituality are human domains. As is any *conception* of the possibility that things could be different (could have been different) or that man, somehow could translate to another deathless sphere and transcend what Earth is; or — and here’s another aspect — that man can transform man’s civilizational life into something close(r) to paradise by countermanding nature and ‘the way things are’.

I've always been puzzled by this about you, that you are in a way both a theist and an atheist. You have had, and in a way endorse the divine implications of, mystical or spiritual experiences, yet at the same time you more or less explicitly reject the objective existence of a deity or deities, preferring to see deity or deities as (mere[1]) "inner", human constructs.

[1] My choice of parenthetical diminutive, not necessarily yours.

[Lacewing]

Does that surprise you?

No. We both have some unconventional perspectives.